• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Thomas Frank - Head Coach

Agree with all except the basic style and formation for player acquisition. Players (as well as managers) should be bought based on a winning mentality. Proven at a lower level, and see if they can step up. People with something to prove, and a track record of doing whatever it takes to get the job done. Styles and formations change too much for a one style squad of players fits several managers. Technically good and mentally strong should be the principles. Within that there is always scope for any manager to get a few of 'their' players, without messing with the overall squad.

Clubs need to approach it that managers are going to revolve regularly until you find 'the one' - so many things need to fall in to place for a manager to click at a club that it would be foolish to put all your eggs in one basket too early (wrt player acquisition) build a squad full of players that have technical ability and strong mental/physical attributes and you've given any manager a fair base from which to make a good go of things -from there you can start to invest in their vision specifically, should they need specialised players for their approach and they show themselves worth backing that way.
 
Clubs need to approach it that managers are going to revolve regularly until you find 'the one' - so many things need to fall in to place for a manager to click at a club that it would be foolish to put all your eggs in one basket too early (wrt player acquisition) build a squad full of players that have technical ability and strong mental/physical attributes and you've given any manager a fair base from which to make a good go of things -from there you can start to invest in their vision specifically, should they need specialised players for their approach

It's why you have a dof. That's the thought process at least.
 
Conversely, Poch, BMJ and Harry all had better second seasons than first. A good manager can take time to implement their ideas. Especially if they have to compete in Europe as well as domestically in their first season.
I think TF has referenced/hinted at it quite a bit...the constant quick turnarounds. Yes, it's not like its been sprung on him BUT the fact is it's a new experience for him.

Hes obviously a details man, and I can imagine schedules and diaries everything out meticulously.....a lot of game to game prep undoubtedly.

Hopefully he's refining and smoothing that process to fit the time available as the weeks pass?
 
Not sure what you are trying to achieve with this. I was replying to your statement saying we were unbeaten in europe.

I was just adding another manager who improved their stats in Y2.

In his second season he won every European game he managed us in, hence the 100% comment.

It was in the context of the thread discussion at the time.
 
Ange came into.......sorry what? Frank came into finishing 17th, record number of defeats of any team not to be relegated, most good players in the squad with long term injury issues and the whole top of the club ripped out after 20 years.....

I think if we had finished 5th or 6th and Frank got the job because the previous guy’s contract expired or something he’d probably approach the job the exact same way. Not specifically targeted at you but I’m not convinced that what Frank inherited has much bearing on how he’s doing or how he’s gone about it. I don’t believe if he had Deki and Solanke we would have attempted to play much differently. Not even a knock on him, I think he just has a clear way of how he goes about things.
 
One of the differences between Palace and Brentford was that the Palace game was one of those rare games (when in Europe) that our opposition had a quick turnaround between games and we didn't. I think the biggest difference between the two games was how good the opposition was on the day.

Palace and the home game against Brentford (who were poor on the day IIRC) our only two wins in our last 10 league games. And for me at least not any clear games in that run where we deserved more than we got.

Yeah…it may well be that the schedule is on our favor with respect to the Palace match. My only counter would be that we did also raise our game at Saudi Sportswashing Machine, versus United, versus Liverpool. I think there has been a good pattern of ending strongly regardless of schedule, even if we haven’t seen the results yet.

I also wonder whether, from his perspective on data, whether he looked at Brentford’s strong home form, who they’ve taken points from, and always intended to be even more conservative in this match because the data says a point is good.

That said, it doesn’t really explain the utterly dreadful passing from our players.
 
I think if we had finished 5th or 6th and Frank got the job because the previous guy’s contract expired or something he’d probably approach the job the exact same way. Not specifically targeted at you but I’m not convinced that what Frank inherited has much bearing on how he’s doing or how he’s gone about it. I don’t believe if he had Deki and Solanke we would have attempted to play much differently. Not even a knock on him, I think he just has a clear way of how he goes about things.
Who is talking about the way he plays? The post i was replying to was about which coach inherited the better situation.

I've also said that regardless of style of play, players make a big difference to it. Man Utd under Fergie were not actually a team that set out to dominate the ball, they actually sat back and were happy to absorb pressure and hit quickly on the counter with Scholes and Beckham playing direct balls into Giggs, Cole etc.

The quality and creativity of the players made the style exciting and "swashbuckling" to watch.

If Kulu, Maddison and Solanke were in the team, we'd be more creative, we'd get players like Kudus and Xavi on the ball quicker and we would just be a whole lot better to watch regardless of whether Frank changed his style of play.
 
I don't.

He had the best squad in the clubs history.

He managed them brilliantly (for a time), and deserves a huge slice of the credit, but he didn't make wine out of water.
And won zilch... despite being in the most number of finals in recent history. Let's cut this Poch deification for goodness sake. The guys did brilliantly in the league for a number of years but he was profoundly lucky to find a squad in which he has minimal input in assembling.... Yet he is simply not a winner... he even failed to get wins at Paris St. German for crying out loud - not to mention being pipped by Leicester! And we saw the choices he made when he had money with the Lo Celso and Ndombele buys!!!
 
Who is talking about the way he plays? The post i was replying to was about which coach inherited the better situation.

I've also said that regardless of style of play, players make a big difference to it. Man Utd under Fergie were not actually a team that set out to dominate the ball, they actually sat back and were happy to absorb pressure and hit quickly on the counter with Scholes and Beckham playing direct balls into Giggs, Cole etc.

The quality and creativity of the players made the style exciting and "swashbuckling" to watch.

If Kulu, Maddison and Solanke were in the team, we'd be more creative, we'd get players like Kudus and Xavi on the ball quicker and we would just be a whole lot better to watch regardless of whether Frank changed his style of play.

I wasn’t saying you did say that. I was just making a general point and I said it wasn’t directed at you specifically.

But I just disagree that we’d get players on the ball quicker if those three players were back. Maybe if we had Mbappe, Bellingham, and prime Salah then I could see the difference. But I think we have players who are a good level, and I don’t think the three we are missing are so much a level above that they would transform our style by virtue of their mere presence on the pitch. Xavi is good. Kudus is good. Kolo Muani is good. If we wanted to get them into positions to receive the ball and have options around them, we would. But Frank’s system for large phases of matches seems to be creating a giant yawning gap between our back and front lines in order to exploit direct passing opportunities. And if he’s doing it with the three currently playing in those positions, I think he’d do it with Solanke and Deki too.

United would counter but they would also absolutely swarm forward when they needed a goal with relentless pressure. It might not have been for the full 90, and they were definitely more controlled in Fergie’s later years, but in the prime that you are talking to I just don’t agree that the players made it. They absolutely had licence to swarm teams with numbers, and the quality of the players made sure they executed consistently.
 
Ange came into.......sorry what? Frank came into finishing 17th, record number of defeats of any team not to be relegated, most good players in the squad with long term injury issues and the whole top of the club ripped out after 20 years.....

When Frank came in, Levy was still chairman and no-one saw his abrupt departure coming (well, a few did, but factually he was firmly in place).
I have since given him plenty of leeway on that front -I started a thread dedicated to seeing the mitigating circumstances he was dealing with.

He arrived at a time when both Van De Ven and Romero were fit, Maddison was fit (his injury is obviously NOT TF’s fault in any way whatsoever), Solanke was at that time, fit.
He was dealt the cruel hand of Maddison and Solanke. Deki we already knew about. Sonny also knew he was leaving. We dithered around replacing the Maddison sized hole in the swuad; someone fudged up badly with MGW (again not TF’s fault obviously), he had previously passed on Eze, we got taken to the bridge by Palace on that, we finally went back for a player we’d circled early in the window (Xavi) and made it happen. Fair to say MGW was TF’s guy and somewhere that got messed up. So yes, unfortunate for him. When the news of Solanke hit, we got Kolo Muani on loan; not a rookie, a World Cup Finalist from PSG. So he went into the season with Richy, Muani (who then did get injured, so unfortunate for TF), Odobert, Johnson, Kudus, and Tel as pure attacking options (you can place Xavi there to if you want). It’s not the worst complement of attacking players in the league, certainly not as bog-standard as some here want to say.

I do genuinely appreciate that your perspective is certainly one to be taken.

My perspective is he came into a squad which had just achieved a trophy, let alone a European trophy, which had suffered outrageously through the season and learnt so much from that pain, and which was primed to dare and do, fused with a little more of the pragmatism we saw employed at the end of last season only done so much better and with more fluidity based on Frank’s history. Add to that his reputation of developing young talent and bringing it to new levels, plus an ownership which was surely primed to support him, and I think he actually stepped into an excellent situation for a manager of his potential ceiling.

I think the person who has had the hardest time transitioning to the club is Thomas Frank. He has spoken (quite rightly too) about the inability to do much work on training pitch because we’re playing every three days or so much of the season (Europe, etc). Frank has never had his working methods challenged like that before. He’s never seen schedule interfere so much with fluid preparation. I think it is a massive shock, and as such, perhaps we are seeing him sit in the ‘risk averse’ spaces as he tries to wrap his head around everything. It’s a whirlwind, plus we’re a club that has attracted media drama for many years.

Time will obviously tell how it all shakes out.
 
And won zilch... despite being in the most number of finals in recent history. Let's cut this Poch deification for goodness sake. The guys did brilliantly in the league for a number of years but he was profoundly lucky to find a squad in which he has minimal input in assembling.... Yet he is simply not a winner... he even failed to get wins at Paris St. German for crying out loud - not to mention being pipped by Leicester! And we saw the choices he made when he had money with the Lo Celso and Ndombele buys!!!

If you think Poch just found this amazing squad that he had nothing to do with developing you just don’t know ball. It’s as simple as that, no other way to say it.

He had a group of talented younger players, none of whom had reached their potential. He improved them all, he built a system that made the whole greater than the sum of the parts, and he built a culture so that his principles endured for 5 years with that same group.

The fact that you think the squad he had was as good as you think it was is entirely down to him.
 
I have no problem with Vic getting booked for continuous time wasting because whenever he did that was when Bees were in the ascendency. When we had momentum he was rotating the ball back into play quickly. I actually call it good leadership by Vic to take the booking and help his team mates get some composure back.

It just all feels a little entitled to be having a knock at Vic when he was there to do a job. It's certainly not his fault the outfield players couldn't gain control.

I’ve seen this ‘entitled’ comment here and there. In this context, what do you mean?
 
I really don't wanna go down Frank v Ange stuff and this forums full of it to the n'th degree

But I will agree on the fact that managers of this club are fodder, fodder for the greater issues.

If anyone thinks panic loaning Tel, then panic buying him to replace Son, whilst doubling down on Odobert helps any manager for quality needed to compete in this league, then you have been on the cool aid. If didn't help Ange and it doesn't help Frank. Neither does lack of planning round a striker and us panicking to bring in Muani on deadline day. Nor does adding Takai IMO, nor does giving Bentancur a new contract and loaning in Palhinha.

The clubs a cluster fcuk at the minute in general, thats not excusing the style, but my GHod how people think this club is destined for greatness in its current set ups and decision making, good grief. We are excepting our bent DOF to leave who was bizarrely bought back from a ban and given a joint role in the club only a couple of months ago...............................Its honestly laughable

I don’t disagree with much of this.
But let me ask you, why do you think (in this case) Frank took the job? What did he get sold (and buy) if the squad was that bad and the foundations so poor? What has happened since the early days of ‘we stand on the shoulders of others…’ and ‘…build upon this foundation’?
Was Frank sold a turd? Is that the thought?
Genuine question mate, not looking to be cheeky here.
 
I wasn’t saying you did say that. I was just making a general point and I said it wasn’t directed at you specifically.

But I just disagree that we’d get players on the ball quicker if those three players were back. Maybe if we had Mbappe, Bellingham, and prime Salah then I could see the difference. But I think we have players who are a good level, and I don’t think the three we are missing are so much a level above that they would transform our style by virtue of their mere presence on the pitch. Xavi is good. Kudus is good. Kolo Muani is good. If we wanted to get them into positions to receive the ball and have options around them, we would. But Frank’s system for large phases of matches seems to be creating a giant yawning gap between our back and front lines in order to exploit direct passing opportunities. And if he’s doing it with the three currently playing in those positions, I think he’d do it with Solanke and Deki too.

United would counter but they would also absolutely swarm forward when they needed a goal with relentless pressure. It might not have been for the full 90, and they were definitely more controlled in Fergie’s later years, but in the prime that you are talking to I just don’t agree that the players made it. They absolutely had licence to swarm teams with numbers, and the quality of the players made sure they executed consistently.
Its not that Kulu, Maddison and Solanke are elite level, its that they are in the first two cases creative both in terms of carrying the ball and passing. They also both score relatively consistently. Solanke is the only forward we have with a bit of hold up and linking play so yeah, you put them and Udogie in this team and i think we are 5 points better off at least and much easier on the eye.
 
I don’t disagree with much of this.
But let me ask you, why do you think (in this case) Frank took the job? What did he get sold (and buy) if the squad was that bad and the foundations so poor? What has happened since the early days of ‘we stand on the shoulders of others…’ and ‘…build upon this foundation’?
Was Frank sold a turd? Is that the thought?
Genuine question mate, not looking to be cheeky here.
It was a chance to step up in club stature, status, expectation and frankly, earnings.
 
Back