director of football

[Waveney Canary 0]

I mention this occasionally and get shot down in flames.

I really think there is something in this in terms of NCFc next stage of development. As the club gets bigger, bigger academy etc someone setting the strategy and leaving the head coach to concentrate on 1st team issues is a good model. Particularly working well at Liverpool at the moment.

Views?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

I would love Norwich to get a good Director of Football - although I have a feeling in Ewan Chester they already have someone carrying out a lot of the roles.

 

I also think Gary Karsa was a DoF for Lambert, the few bit of information you hear about him certainly seems to fit the describition. Lambert was always a fan of the structure of German clubs and they wouldn''t be seen dead with a DoF.

[Syteanric 1]

a Director of Football sits in an office drinking tea all day....

What exactly does one do that McNally or Hughton wouldnt cover between them?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

a Director of Football sits in an office drinking tea all day....

What exactly does one do that McNally or Hughton wouldnt cover between them?

[/quote]

 

They are there to connect all the parts of the football club together, this gives Hughton more time to work with the first team squad rather than running around doing 100s of other little jobs someone else can do. Also, with manager''s having a very short life expectancy these days it is much more sensible to have a Director of Football who isn''t going to be moving on every year or so dealing with the signing of youth players and establishing a club ethos. It isn''t in a manager''s interest to build a team for the future, when it is almost certain they won''t be at the club in 2 or 3 years time. With the current set-up, should Hughton get sacked or like Lambert head-hunted, Norwich could have a massive upheval in playing style and in turn the type of players the new manager wants (as happened when Lambert left) an overarching structure at a club can make this transition easier, similar to how Swansea work.

 

The DoF is maybe more important at clubs run by CEOs who have less footballing experience, and Norwich are lucky in McNally - despite the fact he has much more experience working in marketing than football he has shown good judgement in appointing managers etc. Think how useful a DoF would have been when Doncaster was around. 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

a Director of Football sits in an office drinking tea all day....

What exactly does one do that McNally or Hughton wouldnt cover between them?

[/quote]

 

They are there to connect all the parts of the football club together, this gives Hughton more time to work with the first team squad rather than running around doing 100s of other little jobs someone else can do. Also, with manager''s having a very short life expectancy these days it is much more sensible to have a Director of Football who isn''t going to be moving on every year or so dealing with the signing of youth players and establishing a club ethos. It isn''t in a manager''s interest to build a team for the future, when it is almost certain they won''t be at the club in 2 or 3 years time. With the current set-up, should Hughton get sacked or like Lambert head-hunted, Norwich could have a massive upheval in playing style and in turn the type of players the new manager wants (as happened when Lambert left) an overarching structure at a club can make this transition easier, similar to how Swansea work.

 

The DoF is maybe more important at clubs run by CEOs who have less footballing experience, and Norwich are lucky in McNally - despite the fact he has much more experience working in marketing than football he has shown good judgement in appointing managers etc. Think how useful a DoF would have been when Doncaster was around. 

[/quote]

 

I seem to remember we had one... Brian Hamilton! who then took over when Rioch left....

seems to make us not want to repeat the experiment?

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

In all fairness I think the DoF role is probably fulfilled by McNally, Hughton and Chester. Most, if not all, clubs have some sort of DoF - or in other words, someone looking at the long-term development of the club. So really, just depends whether those roles are carried out by more than one person or just the one person. If Hughton turns out to be a long term appointment at Norwich and secures the club in the Premier League for the next 5 - 10 years plus, then I think the DoF role might be one that he would be interested in, simply because he strikes me as being a "club-builder". Of course very hypothetical, but unless there was a change in manager or management structure, I doubt a DoF will be or will need to be appointed in the short to medium term.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

I''ve often thought Hughton''s skillset would be better suited to a director of football role than a manager

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]I''ve often thought Hughton''s skillset would be better suited to a director of football role than a manager
[/quote]

 

Hughton''s biggest strength is on the training field with the players - turning him into a Director of Football would lose that. Although he has proven he has a sharp eye for a transfer.

[iron_stan 0]

worst idea everalways seem to cause grief and ends in tearsits a bit like saying, we trust you to run the club, but not enough to have full control so therefore this bloke with his own ideas about the game will interfere and make suggestions on transfers and other club policies just to "help" you outpretty sure a director of football is the reason spurs have just wasted 100 + million and sacked the manager that got them their highest ever points tally

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="iron_stan"]worst idea ever

always seem to cause grief and ends in tears

its a bit like saying, we trust you to run the club, but not enough to have full control so therefore this bloke with his own ideas about the game will interfere and make suggestions on transfers and other club policies just to "help" you out

pretty sure a director of football is the reason spurs have just wasted 100 + million and sacked the manager that got them their highest ever points tally
[/quote]

 

Seems to have worked well at Bayern, Dortmund, Barcelona, Juventus etc etc.

[iron_stan 0]

maybe not so well at spurs, newcastle, blackburn, portsmouth, west brom and quite a few other i cant think of off the top of my noggin

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Hughton''s biggest strength is on the training field with the players - turning him into a Director of Football would lose that. Although he has proven he has a sharp eye for a transfer.[/quote]Is it though? He''s been with us a year and half and we haven''t really seen improvement in the way we play or with results, despite an improved squad.How many players have got better under his tutelage? Howson is the only one that stands out, compared to the myriad of players who were good under Lambert but became considerably worse under Hughton. There seems to be very little evidence you can point to to suggest he and his team are doing an excellent coaching job. He also seems rarely willing to tactically change things during a match, and only seems to motivate the players when the pressure is really on. However if you look at what he''s done really well, its all director of football stuff, he''s picked out good signings, done very well to sell the club to players who might previously have thought us beneath them, takes a keen interest in the youth team and is doing well at integrating young players into the men''s game with Redmond, Murphy and Rudd, and is an excellent ambassador for the club as the whole world seems to love him.

[PurpleCanary 6,371]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Hughton''s biggest strength is on the training field with the players - turning him into a Director of Football would lose that. Although he has proven he has a sharp eye for a transfer.[/quote]Is it though? He''s been with us a year and half and we haven''t really seen improvement in the way we play or with results, despite an improved squad.How many players have got better under his tutelage? Howson is the only one that stands out, compared to the myriad of players who were good under Lambert but became considerably worse under Hughton. There seems to be very little evidence you can point to to suggest he and his team are doing an excellent coaching job. He also seems rarely willing to tactically change things during a match, and only seems to motivate the players when the pressure is really on. However if you look at what he''s done really well, its all director of football stuff, he''s picked out good signings, done very well to sell the club to players who might previously have thought us beneath them, takes a keen interest in the youth team and is doing well at integrating young players into the men''s game with Redmond, Murphy and Rudd, and is an excellent ambassador for the club as the whole world seems to love him.[/quote]I would not be quite so hard as that on Hughton but in essence I agree with Dandy. Possibly Hughton is great on the training field...as the coach putting into place a manager''s tactical vision. At implementing someone else''s decisions. But not so good at deciding what that vision should be. And not so good at thinking on his feet in the course of a game.And Dandy''s last paragraph seems spot on. It very much chimes with what Parma''s Ham, who posts here, says, namely that Hughton is a club builder. Just the kind of stuff Dandy is describing. Which is fine. But only if the first team is being properly managed.

[chicken 0]

@Dandy:

That''s a bit of a strange response. We were far from defensively sound when he was appointed.

He has strengthened our team in every department now, improving in almost every purchase.

The football has improved, and it has become far more tactical.

I really don''t get people who think our teams are not set up more tactically than under Lambert.

Our football is generally better as well, it''s just our form and confidence is not quite there yet. If you look at the way some of the moves are constructed, they are far more technical than the smash and grab style of Lambert in our first season.

That wasn''t Lambert''s fault, it was what he had built the team to do for the championship, to change it in our first season was too risky and he knew it.

Hughton was relatively constrained by the ability of the players as a whole last season. Many were good at one very specific role and not that flexible in the way they play.

For example, Fox excelled at the base of the diamond but appears to struggle in a more traditional midfield at this level.

We have played several different formations this season, something I think we didn''t have in our locker last season, or the season before.

In my books we are better, and are trying to play a better brand of football, a more flexible all round, European style of football. The problem is that with the cash injection the league has had every team from 8th down has been able to improve.

No team can just stroll onto a pitch and expect to play a certain way, they have to earn that by winning the ball and preventing the opposition from playing how they want to.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="iron_stan"]maybe not so well at spurs, newcastle, blackburn, portsmouth, west brom and quite a few other i cant think of off the top of my noggin [/quote]Right, so just to paraphrase. ''some clubs are sucessful, and some are not, regardless of if there is a Director of Football or not''.That''s quite the revelation.Maybe it has to do with ''who'' has the roles more than ''what'' they are called?

[Bill 1,788]

"In all fairness I think the DoF role is probably fulfilled by McNally, Hughton and Chester"spot on he would still be reporting back to the board so would merely be a conduit

"He has strengthened our team in every department now, improving in almost every purchase."he ? oh dearplayers are signed by recommendation to the board from the scouts - sure Hughton has an imput BUT HE DOES NOT sign the players"In my books we are better, and are trying to play a better brand of football, a more flexible all round"that has to be a joke, the one defining failure of Hughton is his inability to change things as PC states above and the constant use of one tactic throughout the game

"they have to earn that by winning the ball and preventing the opposition from playing how they want to"what !by sitting off the opposition and allowing them to play hilst we remain in this static, ''zonal'' game plan

as far as I can see the club appears to be doing ok, the youth set up is going great guns, the board is bringing in quality players .... the only real failing is the tactics and coaching of the first team - something that appears to be giving the players the heeby jeebys, hence the repeated mistakes by experienced players that are constantly conceding goalsnot a director of football, but someone who will let the players play as they should and can

[chicken 0]

@Purple: I think Dandy''s last paragraph couldn''t be more wrong.

Ewan Chester has to get a fair amount of credit along with his scouts, for laying down the groundwork. I think it is also fair to say that McNally also has a role to play in terms of ensuring players are made to feel welcome when they come over here.

Hughton attracts players because he is a good coach, a good person and has established a good reputation for himself as a player, coach and a manager. Not necessarily in terms of ''success'' but in terms of approach.

In terms of as a coach, we have signed Bassong and Redmond who both rate him highly. Gutierrez''s eagerness to shake his hand prior to kick off last season is perhaps another indicator.

As said before, there has been a drastic change in terms of coaching and tactics. People are eager to point out players beginning to gel, but it could also be players starting to settle into their roles as well.

Also, may I add, that a director of football is not responsible for bringing through youth, only overseeing that the quality of the youth set up is good enough to produce a quality of player that could be brought through. It is still down to the manager - something that Hughton has done very well with where-ever he has been a coach/manager.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]I''ve often thought Hughton''s skillset would be better suited to a director of football role than a manager
[/quote]

 

Hughton''s biggest strength is on the training field with the players - turning him into a Director of Football would lose that. Although he has proven he has a sharp eye for a transfer.

[/quote]

How do you know that ? Do you attend training at Colney ? Lambert was well known to have little input in the training , is Hughton different in his approach ?