Thomas Frank - Former Head Coach

[Mabspurs]

So wouldn't a crap plan A plus no plan B for Ange be equal to no plan by Frank?

 

[LutonSpurs]

I don't hate this brother. brick just did not work out. Bad decision. He's a lot richer and us a bit poorer for money and status. So glad it's over though.

 

[Raziel]

Really? What's the "hit ratio" at Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth?

Worse than ours, it just doesn't matter

Brentford last 5 leagues finishes -> 10th, 16th, 9th, 13th, 3rd in Champ (7 position spread with highest outside Europe and includes Championship season)
Brighton last 5 league finishes -> 8th, 11th, 6th, 9th, 16th, 15th (10 position spread with highest position in European spot)
Bournemouth last 5 league finishes -> 9th, 12th, 15th, 2nd in Champ, 6th in Champ (6 position spread and 2 seasons in championship)

These clubs have one objective, don't get relegated, and their magic/data driven systems really don't stand up to scrutiny, it basically is build a system around the club that minimizes the reliance on manager/players that has a buffer (6-10 positions), and yes, try to do smart recruiting but lets be clear, Sarr, Bergvall, Grey, Vuskovic, Moore would all be hailed if signed by one of these clubs because they would get the luxury of game time regardless of dips in form because the goal isn't so high.

 

[Raziel]

So wouldn't a crap plan A plus no plan B for Ange be equal to no plan by Frank?

Neither worked, both had close to same floor, maybe if being kind, Ange's crap plan had a better ceiling (he won something even if not with his core tactics)

 

[Finney Is Back]

I guess we will agree that 10 of the 13 coaches he appointed over his 25 year tenure were brick; as evident from their less than 2 year tenure - that's more than 75%!!...

As for the good ones... Poch is all his, I give you that. But MJ was certainly not planned and Redknapp was as much a desperation card as Tudor is right now. Even if you give him those three, it's still less than 25%. Compare that with the likes of Bloom, Benham and Foley at Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth who seemingly are able to bring in coach after coach who fits seemlessly into the fabric and culture of the club....

Problem is that the current incumbents show no signs of being different or more competent....

When Arnesen recommended that we hire Jol as manager, Levy decided he knew more about football than Arnesen and hired Santini instead. Luckily Jol was there as coach and could step in when it quickly became apparent that Levy knew nothing about football and Arnesen did.

 

[Lemonade Money]

See my other reply, with Ange there was a plan A, didn't say it was good, and I covered the lack of game management (plan B) as well

Didn't Plan B win us a trophy?

 

[Lemonade Money]

When Arnesen recommended that we hire Jol as manager, Levy decided he knew more about football than Arnesen and hired Santini instead. Luckily Jol was there as coach and could step in when it quickly became apparent that Levy knew nothing about football and Arnesen did.

Levy knew enough about football to employ Arnesen though.

 

[NoLimits01]

Didn't Plan B win us a trophy?

Yep, maybe we need to give VDV and Romero more credit for coming up with it

 

[Gazza]

To be fair to Ange, there was a tactic

- 4-3-3 out of possession moving to a 2-3-5 in attack, with some key principles, player in possession was given license to move into any open space in front of them, wide players stay wide and play one of two cross options, either across face of goal for tap in by other wide player or cut back to center of box for runners. In addition, high line meant any winning of the ball would have us a lot closer to the opposition goal.

That system had a few problems that got sussed out and Ange never quite adapted, specifically
- The fluidity of players (moving into spaces, FB/winger swap, Porro ending up in middle of box) could be countered by man to man marking
- The counter was long ball over top to width (the center was usually congested), hence Ange was only close to making it work with VDV, probably needed another fastest defender in Europe to make it work

He also had three other issues
- No in game management, no ability even at 3-0 up to slow/close the game out, we were likely to score but also vulnerable for the full 90 minutes
- The players often cramped each other, too often you would have 3-4 players in same area (say out left) making it harder to exploit.
- Bit like Frank's weird zone 14 thing, despite having a player like Son (and Maddison/Deki), Ange didn't really want the cut in from wide, shoot from outside the box as a regular part of the system (Son himself mentioned it), Broader issue of the system bringing the player level down vs. raising it up.

All of that is wildly different from the 4-2-4 mid block game we played for last 8 or so Europa league matches.

For Ange, there was a system, and that's where being kind to him, you could (I don't agree) say that better players (Kane up front, another fast CB, players more technical/comfortable in tight spaces) could have led to success, I'd argue the system had too many flaws to overcome either way. Inherently it works at lower levels where the opposition will be less ruthless, less clinical in chance conversation.

Frank to me beyond the counter the opposition (how, with what transition plan?) seemed to be aiming for

- Get ball to Kudus, Kudus either beats his man or passes back to Porro, Porro booms cross into box (where only one CF would be fighting against 2-3 defenders), this is backed up by data (Porro and Kudus have the most crosses in PL) and who we wanted to buy, Robertson/Semenyo was to replicate the same fudging tactic on left.

At least that's the best I could come up with for Frank

He just didn’t have the mentality to accommodate his injuries in the team or make adjustments that were effective. For me Frank tried too much to be cute by changing formations week in week out, not utilising the players to their strengths.

Ange the opposite in trying to stick to one way of playing regardless of result being stubborn. It’s like every week he may as well have called the opposition manager to let him know what and how we are going to play.

Either way both managers were not backed completely by the board, i would also argue that neither really showed that they should have been trusted long term.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

He just didn’t have the mentality to accommodate his injuries in the team or make adjustments that were effective. For me Frank tried too much to be cute by changing formations week in week out, not utilising the players to their strengths.

Ange the opposite in trying to stick to one way of playing regardless of result being stubborn. It’s like every week he may as well have called the opposition manager to let him know what and how we are going to play.

Either way both managers were not backed completely by the board, i would also argue that neither really showed that they should have been trusted long term.

This image is from the same journalist who wrote the frankly insane ‘Thomas Frank should be the most in demand manager in football’ article today. But I think the end of that first paragraph gets to why Ange didn’t adjust like some people wanted him to.

He built a whole project on the idea that we were going to be the bravest team, and that players would join us to play the kind of football they dreamed about playing as kids. That no matter what the circumstance, we were going to play our way, and if it went wrong, he would take the blame.

The reason he is doing this is because he’s deliberately playing a high risk high reward game. No club should be hiring Ange because they ultimately want to place about where they should place. It’s about taking a big swing, which if you hit, is going to lead to great rewards.

So when he says that adapting his principles would lead to the players questioning him down the line, it’s a really really important point. I think it’s obvious that he intellectually understands that if he was more adaptable, he’d probably pick up a few more points in the short term, to see through an injury crisis for example. But he was thinking long term. The whole point of being brave is that you are brave even when it is hard to be so. If you tell the players it’s ok not to be brave, you’ve essentially lost the chance of performing way above your station, and you become like one of the pack. We (at least I didn’t think) were hiring Ange to be like one of the pack. We were doing it to out perform our starting.

Because it’s such a specific idea and way of playing that most other clubs won’t try. And if we get the exact right pieces in place, and let it all come together, great things can happen. Equally if the pieces aren’t there, there’s going to be some rough moments. But the whole point is that you accept the rough moments because the pay off of having players totally committed to a way of playing that could lead to outsized performance would be worth it. If you question the idea, you lose the bravery. If you lose the bravery, you may as well hire David Moyes or Nuno, and pragmatic your way to upper mid table.