Difficult to defend Johnson at the moment

Not after the performance yesterday or at Rochdale, defending him after those games is a piece of piss, but I've read the presentation published on the science and football website...

Here goes...

That presentation will not be delivered to the players. The players were never the intended audience. It was written for the science and football conference. The first problem is obvious right from the start: football is not a science, it's a sport. Understanding the scientific principles will not make you a good player or a good coach or a good manager however much the people behind science and football would have you believe otherwise. The proof of that is in the pudding: look for the scientific background in the best players, coaches and managers and your search will be fruitless.

Lee Johnson isn't part of the science and football organisation, he was simply a guest speaker. We then hit our second problem: Lee Johnson is not a scientist. He has no background in science. Lee Johnson is an ex-professional football player and now a football manager (or head coach as, for reasons not adequately explained, we don't deem him worthy of the title manager). He has a skill set ideal for that role. He has a background that is the ideal preparation for the role. Having a background in science would not help him do the job. I don't want my physics lecturer from university to be the next Barnsley manager.

I would imagine anyone invited to give a presentation at the science and football conference would believe the organisers are looking for a talk that marries football with science. Tough ask, what with one having nothing to do with the other. If you ask a non-scientist to give a scientific presentation on a subject that has nothing to do with scientific principles, you get what Whitey directed us to. I'll let you choose your own adjectives to describe the presentation you've read. But we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that is how Johnson addresses his players or how he conducts his training sessions.

I believe Johnson has made some mistakes in the last couple of games, but that doesn't make me right. I'll give my opinion on the subject, because I've got a big gob, but I don't for a second believe I could do a better job. I used to think Bassett and Wilson and Hunter and Clarke often got it wrong, but the idea that I knew better than any of them is just ludicrous. I can back my argument up with theories, but as I'll rightly never be given the job of a football manager, those theories will never be tested, I'll never be proved wrong and if you're never proved wrong it's easy to fall in to the trap of believing you know what you're talking about. I've constantly got to remind myself that I don't.

I don't believe Lee Johnson is the problem. I didn't think the numerous managers we've dismissed over the last decade were the problem. Some I liked, some not so much, but none of whom I demanded be sacked, even Keith bloody Hill. I think sacking managers is a major problem.

I am not surprised that a team which has to rely on youth loans to make up the numbers for a match day squad is struggling with performances and results. I am surprised that expectations are so high considering the experience of our squad. With great expectations come huge disappointments, but we've got to stop pointing the finger at the manager when things don't go as well as we hoped.

We've recently been told that the commercial department is doing very well, we can all see that our attendance figures are higher than the majority of clubs in the division, yet we're probably the only team that would struggle to put out a squad of our own players. We're then told we need £1-2 million from the owner every season. Why? Why does a club with bigger gates than many, with a higher turnover than many and with fewer players than most, need additional income to be able to compete? Clubs with attendances half our size compete perfectly well in this division. Some do better than us. Not that having bigger gates and more money gives us a divine right to be a better team. That's the Wednesday way of thinking. But it does give us a platform on which we should be able to compete. It should allow us to build a squad of our own players. And we shouldn't have to rely on the money from a benefactor to survive or even prosper.

I don't know if Johnson is any good or not. It's far too early to tell. But I do know where continually laying all the blame on the incumbent manager has got us - 14th in League 1 with a squad of players that are not our own. All the questions I currently have aren't for Lee Johnson.

 

Best post I've read in months. Agree with everything.

Think LJ needs to be given 2 full seasons. Let's see what happens.

The other method has proven to fail season upon season. But he really really needs to get his football philosophy aligned to L1. This is not the champions league. Keep it simple. Width and pace. Players in correct positions. Maintain a threat upfield while defending set plays. All the very basics.

 

Very good post with some good points

 

Fantastic post from Bomb alley!

Glad you've not calmed down post match yit J!

Eloquent as ever and bang on the money, written in the individual brilliance zone.

 

Brilliant brilliant brilliant post!!

Most frustrating thing is (baring a left back) he has the players now to play a solid 442.
Unfortunately there's no room in that formation for Crowley, Hourihane and Rothwell, unless the 442 is a diamond then really only room for 1 of them. Where then does that leave Ryan Williams?

 

When Mr Cryne hands over to the fans I want you as chairman.

 

Wouldn't do it for a gold pig. The most difficult and thankless task I can think of. That and the fact I'd be ***** at it.

I may sometimes criticise the board, but that does not mean I'm unaware of how difficult it is to produce a successful football team.

 

To be fair, the presentation seems to be a joint one between Lee Johnson & Nathan Winder, our Sports Scientist. I imagine Lee was the headline speaker and talked through the philosophy and the structure and Nathan went into the science.

Lee Johnson sounds like he's a good coach. I hope he gets the chance to prove it over a number of years.

But as ever, you're spot on. I think as our commercial department has got better, so has our marketing and getting people excited about players and our chances gets them to part with cash. Ben basically admitted as much when he was talking about top 6 last year.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

Don,t want him for a second season if the style of football is as it is now.
One is long enough for him to impose his ideas and the style he wants to impose.
Early days granted but more of this rubbish will ensure he is catapulted out of the revolving door of outgoing managers.
Still scratting my head at what attracted the powers that be to recruit him!
Achieved Diddly Squat as a Manager.

 

As have all managers on early appointments. Far and few between achieve immediate success

 

That's why it needed a more experienced candidate appointing

 

Like Danny Wilson ?

 

Wilson should never have come back.
Never achieved nothing after the glory years.
Clueless second time round.

 

I know that a lot of people didnt want DW, i get that. But even ignoring the fact that its DW, objectively, the answer to your question is Yes. We were going through a shitty patch when we got rid of Wilson but most fair minded people would say we were never in danger of relegation and we were building. But we were building with a manager who had proof on his CV that he could be successful. 12 months on, we are going backwards, we are playing shitty football and apart from one brief spell last season when we brought in a player DW had been tracking for months, we haven't really stopped playing shitty football since the day DW left. We also now appear to need to stick with a manager who may never be succesful in his career and the problem is that we just don't know.

 

Jay, there is something you failed to understand in all this, and that is football is not only a sport, it's a business and in business the buck stops at the manager. There is no hiding place.

 

I back every manager that has been appointed or will be appointed at oakwell and will express my right to criticise or praise their decisions or performances including Danny wilsons second coming.
I am rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view) thankful that we have a proffesional club at all after the disastrous experiences of the past.

I have no grievances with anyone having an opposing or differing view to mine but IMO every manager has a period where things are not going to plan or take wrong options,even top managers have that flaw in their locker.
But time has got to be given especially in LJs case, he's a young manager trying new things that may or may not come off straight away or at all but the Everton game shows he can compete with the top managers IMO.
I for one am willing to give him at the very least till the end of this season.I thought when Danny took over the second time was a better situation to achieve safety than Flickers tenure but when I saw the tactics and attitude of the players against Leeds who practically were trying to give us the game imo knew it wasn't going to be but I was prepared to wait and see what happened the season after.

 

But who's the manager? If it's a business and a business continues to fail in its prime objective you don't remove a Director or Head Of, you get rid of the CEO or MD.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

Neither had Allan Clarke. He did ok, until he stupidly took the first chance to go back to Elland Road.

Always thought it was amusing that he had Barry Murphy as his coach there. Spud coaching international footballers. Bizarre!

 

Good post!