The man slowed down BFC plan

I had a beer with a professional football manager a couple of weeks ago, and he explained the pressing game to me like this. He said it was one way for a team with inferior players to compete and beat a team with better players, by working on fitness, strength and agility in addition to football skills like passing, dribbling etc. It works on the theory that it's easier to train players to be super-fit and strong, so they can run around all game and press the opposition players. The performance, fitness and nutritional coaches in the club all play their part in this. If the players are fit enough and can press hard enough, even some of the best players will struggle as there will always be someone "in their face". The Chelsea game (which he watched) was a perfect example of this, and we received lots of positive comments about our performance in that game from throughout the football world. If we try to play a better team at their own game, by trying to pass through/round them, we will come unstuck most of the time because the opposition have better players. We need to press, try to win the ball in dangerous areas, and get the ball forward quickly when we win it at the back, to reduce the risk of losing possession in a dangerous area.

I think it's clear this season that the players, particularly in midfield, are for some reason not fit enough, so they can't press like they did last season. Once we lose the press, we end up competing with the opposition on purely football terms, and if they have better players we will lose out eventually. Sad but true, in my opinion.

 

Apologies if this seems pedantic but I don't believe that's right actually - Coleman had managed elsewhere before Accrington, Ainsworth had been caretaker at QPR, but I take your general point. I'd much rather take a risk on an up and coming UK based manager though because I believe the likelihood of them staying for a period is higher than with one from abroad. And before anyone tells me I'm xenophobic, its not because they're from another country, it's because I recognise that we're simply not big enough to attract such managers for any other reason other than we're a stepping stone to something bigger.
Imo we desperately need some stability and continuity but whilst ever we follow our current policy we won't get any.

 

Spot on, so possibly if last season our coach had concentrated on developing our players passing, positioning, playing football, controlling possession, playing through not over midfield and game management we may now be in a better state as a team.

 

Ashton Utd for Coleman, I agree stability would be wonderful and history generally does show continuity brings success.

 

Like Schopp for example

 

Agree, once West Brom came in, it would be difficult, but there could still be a case put to him. But the farcical circumstances around Murphy's position probably made it impossible. But it was clear for months how good he was. And he was more valuable than any individual player, yet we had a £2m clause in. I think any other club would've had a new contract in front of him by January.

Lowe spent two and a half years at Plymouth, got them promoted and established them at a higher level. At the moment, I struggle to see how any head coach will be at Barnsley for that long.

He claimed he'd had other Championship offers when he went to Stoke. He'd guided them from the bottom of league 2 to the top of League 1 in three years. Again, if Luton were running things like we do, he'd have been gone long before.

I just think that these release clauses are having a destabilising effect. When you're struggling for playing budget, it is important to have a good head coach so you have to do what you can to keep the good ones for longer than a season. Because eventually, an appointment won't work out.

 

I suspect the players suffered more as a result of the capitulation of the backroom staff in the summer, loss of fitness and inept coaching this season. We weren't this bad at the start of the season (we weren't great, but we weren't this bad), but we've just got worse and worse as the season has gone on.

 

But do you not think we should've had a new contract in front of Ismael last season, to either delay or increase the release clause? He might not have signed it, but at least we'd have tried. If Helik or Styles had a £2m clause in their contracts, there'd have been an outcry, and I think Ismael was more valuable to us than any player.

To give another example, I imagine Blackpool will be in a stronger position when there's interest in their coach now, having given him a new contract.

 

But normally, the club are very quick to say when they've been discussing a new contract with anybody, nothing said about trying to tie Ismael down on a better contract.

We can't just keep losing coaches after less than a year. It's just not sustainable. Which is why I think, if a coach isn't going to entertain a contract where a release clause isn't active so soon after joining, then they're not the right man for the job. If the clause was active after season 2, maybe.

 

We knew Mowatt had a contract offer. We know we've offered Palmer a contract. They keep their cards close to their chest, but generally when somebody leaves, having turned an offer down from us, they tend to let us know that they've tried to keep that person. Nothing forthcoming on that score with Ismael. And I think the root problem was Murphy's contract situation.

You're right, I am speculating, but it's based on what I've seen coming out of the club, with previous departures and interviews with Murphy before it emerged that he was going. I can't see any other club resigning themselves to losing a coach after a good 30 odd games, and we do so because these clauses give us zero control over how long we can keep hold of anybody.

 

Given the situation going on with the CEO, do you honestly believe we did a great deal to keep him, beyond hoping nobody would meet the release clause?

 

Well that'd be another issue, and it's why I said I do not like the release clauses.

People say the release clause is the reason why we managed to attract him in the first place. Well it turns out we'd have been better off doing, given he came in, did well for 39 games, left and took a bunch of staff with him that he'd inherited at Barnsley.

I know the days of coaches / managers being around for years and years are gone, unless you're Guardiola or Klopp. But I'd at least like to see a coach that's keen to build something in a second season, rather than somebody that's already got their eyes on the exit door before they've even walked into the club. The fact we have a clause seemingly active throughout the contract means we'll always be looking over our shoulder whenever we have a coach that wins a few games. There'll never be any stability that way. if the clause kicked in after season 2, or within a certain window (between end of season and start of pre-season), then it might be different.

 

Why offer him another contract ,he'd already signed a 3 year deal with clauses.I agree with Loko WBA could blow us out of the water on wages for a start once there was interest there was only one way it was going to end.In hindsight the 2 million clause was quite good when you consider Villa only had to pay Rangers 3 million.

 

This almost tops every thread posted by Hemsy.