BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Using The Apprentice as an example doesn't make your argument any less convincing, it's a gameshow designed to make them all look like idiots under pressure. Football Management may not be a university course but it doesn't mean that they don't know more knowledge than you, just because the mode of entry is different.
Carrick was a great player. I'm 100% sure Santini knew exactly what kind of player Carrick was, but he was trying to do something else with the team. Arnesen was trying to do something different, probably following a brief from Levy to find talented young English players at value for money prices. Santini was implementing a dull, dour style of football and there was obvious conflict, and an obvious power struggle as Steff says. Because Santini didn't play Carrick, it doesn't mean the fans saw something he didn't, it just means he was trying to do something else tactically - and also trying to exert his own authority over the club in a power play. There are so many different powers at play in a football club, and it isn't as simple as what one person things is the 'obvious' best decision. In that example, you had the pressures of Levy, Arnesen and Santini all wanting different things. It wasn't because fans could see something they all couldn't. In fact using the examples just proves the point of people like me - you didn't know what kind of discussions and struggles were going on behind the scenes. Yes we can say that struggles are bad and an agreeable stream from board to pitch will be better for a football club, but it's like saying all humans can see war isn't a good thing. Yeah, we know that. It doesn't make us any cleverer though, because there are considerations world leaders are making and we simply don't know the details of them.
Hoddle's use of a 3-5-2...again, it's not because the obvious, sure fire route to success would be to not use it. As an abstract example, if the choice was between playing 3-5-2 one season and finishing 15th, but the next season, because the players were more familiar, because you were able to sign more players suited to the system and because you had more luck with injuries you finished 4th, it would have been worth it. I'm not saying that would have definitely been the case with Hoddle, but that's the thinking behind it. Taking a step back to take 2 forward is a common occurrence in football and one we are going through with AVB now. There's an argument to say that it's worth taking the pain of implementing a new system in order to be greater than the sum of the team's individual parts once they are more confident with it. Doesn't mean Hoddle was 'wrong', it just means there are many different ways of going about preparing a football team.
Under AVB, it's the same thing. Gallas is probably being played because AVB is wanting to utilise his leadership qualities, his experience, his tactical awareness at a time he is trying to implement a new system. He is also building a team in an intelligent way, in the opposite vein of how QPR have gone about it for example. Their way was to sign the best players they thought they could, and it would all come together. AVB's idea is to make everyone in the squad feel wanted, whether that be a kid that's been hovering around the reserves for years in Ryan Mason, a guy that's won countless medals and played GHod knows how many Champions League games in William Gallas or a 4th choice goalkeeper that we've kept on after a serious motorbike accident. He played Cudicini at Carlise even though Lloris needed games because he wants to make everyone feel involved, he doesn't want anyone coming into the club thinking they have nothing to give. In the case of Gallas, an experienced and influential player like that especially needs to be utilised because he's the one with a winning mentality that can rub off on other members of the squad.
So the point I'm making is, yes you are right in saying that not all professional managers will know every right answer, because there simply isn't one. But Management Consultants still have particular expertise in their industry. And football managers still know the theory behind what they are trying to do, even if it isn't backed up by empirical research. There's many ways of going about it getting success in football, and I'd say the ones that do it are the lucky ones, because they have had all the circumstances align perfectly for them. There's so many competing powers that sometimes a manager won't get it all his own way. Players can do something different, the chairman can do something he doesn't want, a sporting director, an injury, a bad ref, an unlucky bounce. But I'm pretty certain that all manager's decisions have rational thought behind them, and in theory can be successful, it just depends on the circumstances as to whether they are.
That's why good managers are sacked from previous jobs. That's why good managers have suffered relegations even. And that's why unknown inexperienced managers can achieve great things. Harry and AVB both have an idea of how to play the game and manage a team. Neither is wrong but the power and will of Levy is taking us in one direction. But you can bet that all managers almost certainly see everything that a fan does, and if they choose to do something different from a fan it's because they are trying to complete a bigger plan. Phrases like 'I hope AVB knew the reasons as to why it worked' are completely cringeworthy. You can bet AVB has made mistakes, but even the very best managers make mistakes, because the point about football is that there is no perfect way. But you can bet that when AVB had his time out of the game, the people he went to for real advice as to why it went wrong at Chelsea and what he should do in the future were respected people within the game that know what they are talking about, and not fans - because they don't really know what they are talking about. They don't know what goes on. And that's not an insult. I'm a fan. And I'm happy with that.
