I see Farke has not changed

[cambridgeshire canary 6,874]

With all the drama around Leeds Wilfried Gnonto having handed in a transfer request and saying he does not want to play for Leeds anymore and the club seemingly refusing to sell him Farke had this to say about it.. Anyone getting Déjà vu?

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

5 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

With all the drama around Leeds Wilfried Gnonto having handed in a transfer request and saying he does not want to play for Leeds anymore and the club seemingly refusing to sell him Farke had this to say about it.. Anyone getting Déjà vu?

Ben Marshall? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Ben Marshall? 

I don't think Cambridge meant him. Was Cambridge born when Ben Marshall played for us?

[Monty13 2,280]

I think this will always be my biggest criticism of Farke.

This is fine if the players are fringe and you can do without them but your job as manager is to motivate and manage these individuals. They aren’t associates in a warehouse, they are club assets.

Star players almost always have egos, they have to be managed. Isolation should be the last resort.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,874]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

I think this will always be my biggest criticism of Farke.

This is fine if the players are fringe and you can do without them but your job as manager is to motivate and manage these individuals. They aren’t associates in a warehouse, they are club assets.

Star players almost always have egos, they have to be managed. Isolation should be the last resort.

I think Drmic was a good example of this. Clearly was a good player in him (and his time after leaving us has proved this) but all it took was supposedly him somehow upsetting Farke and he got kicked out of the team, thrown into training with the youth players and was never heard of again 

[Canary dwarf 221]

1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

I think Drmic was a good example of this. Clearly was a good player in him (and his time after leaving us has proved this) but all it took was supposedly him somehow upsetting Farke and he got kicked out of the team, thrown into training with the youth players and was never heard of again 

I thought drmic looked really poor for us really wasn't too upset about that ,we had a German player under farke who was a midfield player whose passing range was top class ( can't remember his name) but he fell out with farke and was not see again!

[Hairy Canary 714]

Just now, Canary dwarf said:

I thought drmic looked really poor for us really wasn't too upset about that ,we had a German player under farke who was a midfield player whose passing range was top class ( can't remember his name) but he fell out with farke and was not see again!

Leitner?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,874]

2 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said:

I thought drmic looked really poor for us really wasn't too upset about that ,we had a German player under farke who was a midfield player whose passing range was top class ( can't remember his name) but he fell out with farke and was not see again!

Leitner? 

That always did feel like a bit of a mess. 

[Danke bitte 967]

Ahem… Cantwell… 

[lake district canary 4,562]

16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think this will always be my biggest criticism of Farke.

This is fine if the players are fringe and you can do without them but your job as manager is to motivate and manage these individuals. They aren’t associates in a warehouse, they are club assets.

Star players almost always have egos, they have to be managed. Isolation should be the last resort.

It's a number one requirement of the best managers that the players are 100% committed to the group effort. This is what made Clough/Shankly/Ferguson so successful and  Guardiola and Klopp today. 

Imo it's the biggest thing to get right and setting out how it is, clear and simple, is a message to all those who set themselves apart. I think it's a great strategy and one that gets rid of those unable to keep their egos in check.  

You might lose some good players on the way  but as long as you are supported by the club, it means your authority as head coach/manager is maintained and the players know exactly where they stand. 

Several players caused Farke problems at Norwich and he dealt with them as he set out when he first arrived - and on the whole, it was beneficial to the group cohesiveness. Cantwell was the trickiest one to deal with and imo was part of the reason Farke was sacked. Yes, results was the major reason, but having Cantwell outside of things was not helping the team and it was a constant irritation to squad cohesiveness. 

Lose your authority as a manager, or not be supported in your actions by the club and you might as well give up. Farke is exactly right in his approach to the group ethic and you would expect Leeds to have that - but if too many rebel, them he will fail. Will be interesting to see if he succeeds in that aspect and if he does - and is allowed to buy the calibre of players he needs - success  on the pitch is all but guaranteed. 

[TheBaldOne66 722]

Leitner springs to mind

[Mr Angry 1,575]

Good man management means knowing how to manage individuals-whether that is a group of prima donna footballers or a group of manual labourers. We all have different personalities and respond to different methods of managing-some need to be nurtured, some need to be encouraged, some need to be shown discipline etc. Being unable to recognise that-or being unwilling to acknowledge it-is a major flaw in a manager I'm afraid.

Whether that is the case with Farke I don't know.

[Kingston Yellow 226]

26 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's a number one requirement of the best managers that the players are 100% committed to the group effort. This is what made Clough/Shankly/Ferguson so successful and  Guardiola and Klopp today. 

Imo it's the biggest thing to get right and setting out how it is, clear and simple, is a message to all those who set themselves apart. I think it's a great strategy and one that gets rid of those unable to keep their egos in check.  

You might lose some good players on the way  but as long as you are supported by the club, it means your authority as head coach/manager is maintained and the players know exactly where they stand. 

Several players caused Farke problems at Norwich and he dealt with them as he set out when he first arrived - and on the whole, it was beneficial to the group cohesiveness. Cantwell was the trickiest one to deal with and imo was part of the reason Farke was sacked. Yes, results was the major reason, but having Cantwell outside of things was not helping the team and it was a constant irritation to squad cohesiveness. 

Lose your authority as a manager, or not be supported in your actions by the club and you might as well give up. Farke is exactly right in his approach to the group ethic and you would expect Leeds to have that - but if too many rebel, them he will fail. Will be interesting to see if he succeeds in that aspect and if he does - and is allowed to buy the calibre of players he needs - success  on the pitch is all but guaranteed. 

I must have missed your tenure as England manager.  
 

What rubbish. Remember Cantona? Do you think Ferguson didn’t bend rules for him?  Just as one example.

[Kingston Yellow 226]

54 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think this will always be my biggest criticism of Farke.

This is fine if the players are fringe and you can do without them but your job as manager is to motivate and manage these individuals. They aren’t associates in a warehouse, they are club assets.

Star players almost always have egos, they have to be managed. Isolation should be the last resort.

Well put.

[......and Smith must score. 1,369]

44 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Lose your authority as a manager, or not be supported in your actions by the club and you might as well give up. Farke is exactly right in his approach to the group ethic and you would expect Leeds to have that - but if too many rebel, them he will fail. Will be interesting to see if he succeeds in that aspect and if he does - and is allowed to buy the calibre of players he needs - success  on the pitch is all but guaranteed. 

This applies to every single professional football but success is never all but guaranteed. Buying the calibre of players you need is not going to help if those players fail to perform for you.

 

[lake district canary 4,562]

22 minutes ago, Kingston Yellow said:

I must have missed your tenure as England manager. 

What rubbish. Remember Cantona? Do you think Ferguson didn’t bend rules for him?  Just as one example.

Cantona was a huge ego, but was a great player for Man Utd because of it, not in spite of it and Ferguson was clearly in control of his players. When players start to cause problems within the group, that is when managers start having problems.  Nothing wrong with huge egos as long as they are focussed to play within the group and not set themselves apart.

[Robert N. LiM 4,664]

If a coach falls out with and banishes one player, that suggests a problem with the player. If a coach falls out with and banishes a lot of players, that suggests a failing of the coach. And I say that as someone who loves Daniel more than LDC does.

[lake district canary 4,562]

5 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

53 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Lose your authority as a manager, or not be supported in your actions by the club and you might as well give up. Farke is exactly right in his approach to the group ethic and you would expect Leeds to have that - but if too many rebel, them he will fail. Will be interesting to see if he succeeds in that aspect and if he does - and is allowed to buy the calibre of players he needs - success  on the pitch is all but guaranteed. 

This applies to every single professional football but success is never all but guaranteed. Buying the calibre of players you need is not going to help if those players fail to perform for you.

But I think this is the point. If players are more interested in themselves to the extent that they don't play within a 100% team ethic - Marshall/Oliveira/Leitner/Cantwell etc etc - then the group isn't going to perform at it's best. Get that 100% togetherness and success is much more likely.

What's encouraging from our first two performances is that we seem to have that Farke-like group cohesiveness again. It's the most important factor imo.

[Monty13 2,280]

57 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's a number one requirement of the best managers that the players are 100% committed to the group effort. This is what made Clough/Shankly/Ferguson so successful and  Guardiola and Klopp today. 

Imo it's the biggest thing to get right and setting out how it is, clear and simple, is a message to all those who set themselves apart. I think it's a great strategy and one that gets rid of those unable to keep their egos in check.  

You might lose some good players on the way  but as long as you are supported by the club, it means your authority as head coach/manager is maintained and the players know exactly where they stand. 

Several players caused Farke problems at Norwich and he dealt with them as he set out when he first arrived - and on the whole, it was beneficial to the group cohesiveness. Cantwell was the trickiest one to deal with and imo was part of the reason Farke was sacked. Yes, results was the major reason, but having Cantwell outside of things was not helping the team and it was a constant irritation to squad cohesiveness. 

Lose your authority as a manager, or not be supported in your actions by the club and you might as well give up. Farke is exactly right in his approach to the group ethic and you would expect Leeds to have that - but if too many rebel, them he will fail. Will be interesting to see if he succeeds in that aspect and if he does - and is allowed to buy the calibre of players he needs - success  on the pitch is all but guaranteed. 

I never see/saw any of the best managers banish players to anywhere near the number or frequency that Farke did.

Yes 100% commitment is key, but it can be and is being done without this approach. 

It’s poor management IMO, it’s fear based management dressed up as team centric. The best managers can deal with the majority of those who speak out without getting to the point you ostracise them.

[lake district canary 4,562]

1 minute ago, Robert N. LiM said:

If a coach falls out with and banishes one player, that suggests a problem with the player. If a coach falls out with and banishes a lot of players, that suggests a failing of the coach. And I say that as someone who loves Daniel more than LDC does.

I could agree with that, but it depends on the circumstances. Oilveira was clearly not going to fit in with Farke's ethos, nor Marshall. The Leitner fall was quite spectacular, but a clear breakdown in the relationship.  Cantwell's shenanigans was the most damaging though imo - and that combined with results going badly, affected others. The fundamental of 100% group togetherness was the one thing that Farke made totally clear and repeated it several times when he first came to Norwich and he's doing the same at Leeds - because he knows it is the best way to get long term success.

[DraytonBoy 169]

What exactly should Farke say when asked about the situation?

The player and his agents have been told by the club 'we're not selling you', the player has told his manager he doesn't want to play, the fans now hate the player and want him gone. Farke has to do what he thinks is best for the team, that's his job.

[Newtopia 520]

I always thought that was one of Farkes strengths, I agree his job is to manage egos, and to make players feel valued.  Equally if someone does not want to be there or you do not think they are right in the group it is better to be decisive, then everyone knows where they stand.  In fact where the player wants away they are able to cone out and make it clear they want to stay and he can reintroduce the player.  I am pretty sure Warnock used to isolate injured players to keep them away from the Matchday squad.

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

15 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

If a coach falls out with and banishes one player, that suggests a problem with the player. If a coach falls out with and banishes a lot of players, that suggests a failing of the coach. And I say that as someone who loves Daniel more than LDC does.

I'd say the problem is that player power, especially with the money involved in the game, is disproportionate. Farke's style is a means of keeping the team as homogeneous and focused as possible.

[lake district canary 4,562]

17 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I never see/saw any of the best managers banish players to anywhere near the number or frequency that Farke did.

Yes 100% commitment is key, but it can be and is being done without this approach. 

It’s poor management IMO, it’s fear based management dressed up as team centric. The best managers can deal with the majority of those who speak out without getting to the point you ostracise them.

Clough/Ferguson ruled by fear - and they had huge egos to deal with, but never seemed to have a problem. Giardiola has total respect from every player in existence and any egos in the Man City camp would not dare step out of line.

Farke is trying to get the same effect in a time where player power is rife and plenty of players who are interested in themselves primarily and the team second and who regard head coaches as beneath them. What he has to do is get that respect by ruling with a certain amount of authoritarianism - and it works as long as he gets some success on the pitch as a result.  Prolonged success will elevate him towards Guardiola status (let's not forget Guardiola is a fan of Farke, which says something) and he will get a top job.

Time will tell, but he is going about Leeds in the exact way he went about Norwich - be in the group or you are out - and that works.

Edited August 13, 2023 by lake district canary

[Newtopia 520]

14 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I never see/saw any of the best managers banish players to anywhere near the number or frequency that Farke did.

Yes 100% commitment is key, but it can be and is being done without this approach. 

It’s poor management IMO, it’s fear based management dressed up as team centric. The best managers can deal with the majority of those who speak out without getting to the point you ostracise them.

I am not sure that is true, didn’t Ferguson fall out with Ronaldo, Beckham, Van Nistolroy, Sharpe, Keane, and those are the players I recall. 

Cloughs treatment of Fashanu was shocking, but to be honest I am too young to recall much about him as a manager.

[Monty13 2,280]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Clough/Ferguson ruled by fear - and they had huge egos to deal with, but never seemed to have a problem. Giardiola has total respect from every player in existence and any egos in the Man City camp would not dare step out of line.

Farke is trying to get the same effect in a time where player power is rife and plenty of players who are interested in themselves primarily and the team second and who regard head coaches as beneath them. What he has to do is get that respect by ruling with a certain amount of authoritarianism - and it works as long as he gets some success on the pitch as a result.  Prolonged success will elevate him towards Guardiola status (let's not forget Guardiola is a fan of Farke, which says something) and he will get a top job. #

Time will tell, but he is going about Leeds in the exact way he went about Norwich - be in the group of you are out - and that works.

Respect is earned. Pep has huge respect because he earned it.

Clough and Ferguson managed at their heights in completely different times both in terms of player power and social acceptance.

I agree with @Robert N. LiM, when a manger consistently ostricises players that says more about the manger than the players.

The situation right now at Leeds is pretty toxic with players wanting out so I don’t blame Farke particularly for these specific comments, but he has a long history of this. Personally I don’t think Farke will ever be a top manager if this is his way of building and maintaining a team.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Monty13

[Monty13 2,280]

11 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

I am not sure that is true, didn’t Ferguson fall out with Ronaldo, Beckham, Van Nistolroy, Sharpe, Keane, and those are the players I recall. 

Cloughs treatment of Fashanu was shocking, but to be honest I am too young to recall much about him as a manager.

Ferguson was United manager for 27 years dealing with some of the biggest stars in world football who could have walked into almost any other team.

Farke was our manager for less than 5 dealing with such world class talents as Oliveira, Leitner and Cantwell.

And the number of names you can put on the Farke list is pretty high.

[Robert N. LiM 4,664]

28 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say the problem is that player power, especially with the money involved in the game, is disproportionate. Farke's style is a means of keeping the team as homogeneous and focused as possible.

Absolutely true, and I think it's an endearing quality of DF's that he puts the team/squad first, above the individual.

But of course that problem of player power becomes bigger the higher up the pyramid you go, and might - might - contribute to a ceiling for Farke as a coach. As @Monty13 says:

20 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Personally I don’t think Farke will ever be a top manager if this is his way of building and maintaining a team.

Not sure I'd go quite that far, but it is a distinct possibility.

[Kingston Yellow 226]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Cantona was a huge ego, but was a great player for Man Utd because of it, not in spite of it and Ferguson was clearly in control of his players. When players start to cause problems within the group, that is when managers start having problems.  Nothing wrong with huge egos as long as they are focussed to play within the group and not set themselves apart.

That’s my point.  Great manager know how to get the best out of great players as well as average players.  They don’t have a one-size-fits all approach.  They’re not inflexible and they bend rules for star players.  Cantona jumped into the stand and karate kicked a fan.  Ferguson supported him.  He didn’t send him to train with the youth.  Jaap Stam stepped out of line and he was gone.  

[hogesar 9,818]

1 hour ago, DraytonBoy said:

What exactly should Farke say when asked about the situation?

The player and his agents have been told by the club 'we're not selling you', the player has told his manager he doesn't want to play, the fans now hate the player and want him gone. Farke has to do what he thinks is best for the team, that's his job.

Good result against Birmingham eh