The next manager...

...needs to tell the board 'this is how I want to run the team if I'm appointed'. The board need to be more flexible regarding recruitment criteria and tactical implementation. There's a place for the board's values and the spreadsheet but the new man must have a big input. He's the most important signing made and if he's any good some respect for his decisions would potentially do wonders and would forge a good link between coach and board. Obviously he needs to be told financial truths but within that he needs to be given space for a bit of independent thought over all team matters.

 

needs to summon this board together and say.... just butt out and do your own job....

 

There is flexibility regarding recruitment.

 

I was thinking specifically about managerial involvement.

 

There's choice A,B,C and D which one do you like with regards to recruitment, but what if the new head coach says I'm playing 433 go get me 2 wide attacking players? Is that where the flexibility ends?

 

I've never bought into the argument that the board is deciding what formation we play or what team we play. Of course the manager/head coach picks that. They might say we want an attacking style of play with a press... can you do this? I don't think that's too ridiculous.

 

Football people dealing with the footballing side. Business people dealing with the business side

 

Only 3 months ago Donovan Pines stood on the Oakwell pitch at half time and recounted how he'd taken a call from Neill Collins - who he'd previously impressed in the US - explaining how *he* wanted him to come to Barnsley.

You may want to believe that the club is run entirely with reference to a 'spreadsheet' (which itself displays something of a lack of understanding of what the use of data might entail), but there is plenty of hard, factual evidence that shows it is not. Including countless explanations by board members, CEO's and Head Coaches alike.

There is plenty wrong with the running of the club which I have no time or inclination to debate right now, but it is a reductive narrative to suggest that our coaches are entirely removed from transfer policy or - even more ridiculously - the formation and style of play on the pitch. They just need to find the right balance.

 

That's the issue. Head coach says I want a CB. Recruitment give them 3 names to choose from. Head coach may not like any of them and want to pick their own person, but instead has to pick who they think is the best of bad bunch.

 

The phone call went along these lines “Donovan, your name is on the spreadsheet, I want you in Barnsley “

 

For the past decade the average tenure of the head coach is less than 12 months. It makes no sense to let them buy their own players for their own style of play when they'll likely be gone within a year. This isn't new - Patrick announced we'd be working differently after Wilson left, because we'd seen Hill, then Flitcroft, the Wilson bring in their own signings and get nowhere. Managers are made aware of this before they sign, and that they'll be expected to play a certain way because the players have been recruited for a specific style of play. Cadden and O'Keeffe are not fullbacks for a back four. That being so, the head coach still has input on recruitment, and Pines is an obvious example of this. This operating model is not exclusive to Barnsley, and as much as footballing luddites long for the days when the likes of Brian Clough were in total charge it is simply not an effective way to run a club any more.

 

"Donnie lad, I want you to come to play for me in Barnsley. Don't worry about not knowing anything about it - you'll play about 5 games before I get sacked..."

 

‘I don’t think any of these would be a good fit - can you bring me some other options and run the data for X player at Y football club’

 

Has anyone seen Richie's car in the East Stand car park yet, WE11ENS ?

 

And that's why your opening statement won't change and we'll never get any kind of stability with a head coach.
To add to that we've a playing style that's become stagnant and very easy for opposing teams to work out. We have no ability to change things and win a game in a different way apart from plan A or plan A.
We've put so much emphasis that a back 3 is the correct way that the best RWB at the club was forced to play there for large parts of the season.
We regularly miss out on the better players at this level to promotion rivals as we soley focus on what position they play and if they have re-sale value.
I'm not suggesting for a minute we go back to to a manager that brings all his mates in, but we're becoming a less attractive proposition to potential head coaches while we continue down this avenue.

This model has delivered 3.5 seasons of championship football in 7 years, 2 of those ended in relegation
It's hardly been a rip roaring success, we are now faced with a scenario where there isn't much left to sell meaning we'll have to cut our cloth further potentially regressing more or do something different.
The novelty of being a data driven club has gone, it needs to be used to identify players, but it needs using in a team that's got experience, balance and options, not 4 wingbacks that can't put a ball in the box between them.

 

Because people would rather believe someone on a social media page than someone at the club, it’s been repeated by almost every if not every manager that they are included but still people don’t believe it.

 

Which bit of work with says tell them?