Re: Hugo Lloris
he way i see it, the league is getting a smaller and smaller deviation from the average team..every point counts.....i am worried that we cant seem to pick up points from the lesser teams which would raise the need to beat the harder teams which is yet to be seen if we are capable of doing
and you know what, its common to have a transition period but with the level of players we have the transition shouldnt be as bad as that norwhich game
that performance isnt expected in most kind of circumstances that doesnt involve injuries or an act of GHod IMO
i'm just trying to think of a situation where a good manager took over a good team and the expectation, the actuall expectation and belief would be a big regression from how they were literally a few months prior to how they would be under new management
i cant think of nay situation where it was expected and / or accepted ..especially as the norm.
Agreed, the transition shouldn't have been that bad. It was really depressing to watch, it was like there had been absolutely no tactical work on what to do with the ball ever since the new manager came in, and yet the players were acting like they had been told to do something which they were unable to do. It was so, so weird.
Maybe there aren't many examples of good new managers having an accepted transition period because the type of manager is changing. We have guys like AVB and Rodgers managing big teams in England, guys that hadn't played the game at a high level but have gotten some success in their careers by learning a lot about the game, and drilling the team to a set system that can lead to excellent results if they get the right players to play within it. So in Rodgers case, even though I find the guy greatly annoying, I think he clearly has some good knowledge about the game, and can be a good manager, but at Liverpool there will be a transition period because a lot of their good players don't suit his very specific way of playing, so they would need to accept a transition will happen. Same with us, simply because the players must get used to the fact they have more tactical instructions than before, so there may be a transition period.
A lot of other managers that join English teams don't have radically different ways of doing things or thinking about the game, even though they may be more attacking or more defensive for example. They will probably give more individual freedom than these new 'system' managers and therefore the level of the comfort for the players in what they need to do is always pretty high.
But I agree though, even if there is a transition period, no performance should be as bad as that Norwich game. So many things were wrong with it, the players were making so many basic, obvious errors that anyone could see. I can't even put my finger on why it would be that bad. I read that AVB, despite being more tactical than Harry, wasn't overly tactical and was able to reduce his tactics to a half an hour briefing before a game, which is what I believe Harry did anyway. But it then begs the question, if he isn't overly tactical, what the hell was the problem in that game? Why had the players all abandoned good, normal football sense?