That is true. I dont know if Laudrup has the same philosophy
You know what Swansea have done so damn well... appoint Managers that have had similiar philosophies. It all started from Martinez who built the foundations, then Sousa, then Rodgers and now Laudrup - all seemingly have the same philosophy, tactics and playing style.
Each Manager appointed was appointed with the thinking that they were just a continuation from the previous Manager which means continuous success and none of the transitional period.
Hang on I wasn't criticising him. I didnt misunderstand the question - I made a comparison between AVB and bringing in the Laudrup example so not sure of the first sentence.
Laudrups interview intrigued me as he seemed to have come along with new ideas however instead of destroying what had already existed he tweaked what was already in place and im sure he will continue tweaking until he gets to the desired state that he wants his team in. Phased approach as it were.
I dont think its ever as cut and dried as how long it takes to bring in or implement new ideas... there are two things to take into account a) the approach to implementing those new ideas Is it a phased approach for example Laudrup or is it a 'destroy the building and start again' approach which AVB is doing. Whilst the former would show continuity and will mean success while changing the latter will mean starting again but both would take time. b) Was the previous 'regime' successful? People are much more receptive to taking on board new ideas if the older regime was unsuccessful (hence the honeymoon phase). If people are more receptive less time would be needed to implement those changes as ultimately players and staff etc will be the ones carrying out those ideas.
In a business context I have seen change management go horribly wrong simply because the new Management just came in and implemented their ideas without any idea of what the current set up was like, the strengths and weaknesses of personnel and key staff themselves. I have also seen change go very well because they took the phased approach. Lets be honest new ideas is change. Its similar im sure in a football team.
In a footballing context it seriously is about the buy in from the players, the staff, the hierarchy and the fans. Do you believe in the new ideas. Do you think there needed change and these new ideas? If it aint broke no need to fix it...
We all know that is not the tactic that AVB wants to play, he has just been hampered by not having the players in place early and Ade not being match fit because he didn't have a pre-season.
A good question at this moment in time! Might be useful if people could also give examples of how long it took someone to drastically change the status quo at a club. I'd be interested to know, for example, how long it took:
* Barcelona to master their game under Guardiola
* Ditto Swansea and Rodgers
* Chelsea under Jose
* Norwich under Lambert (didn't they cruise to promotion after a terrible start?)
The example ive got a clearer idea of is Big Sam at West Ham
Clearly this isn't a direction we want to go in but the fact is, Allardyce went in there, ripped up one way of playing and enforced his own style. This led to success (promotion) in a relatively short space of time. But maybe it's a lot easier to change a system if you are doing something crude like a long ball game. So he turned it around well within a season, maybe as little as three months?
If the system actually works it normally does instantly. You need a system that works instantly as well as develops into a longer term vision.
Using our own club examples, Jol took over and instantly got the team playing. HR took over and instantly picked up results, in fact I know people like to make Harry out as an idiot but what he did at Spurs was very clever. He changed the mentality by buying or playing tough physical players (we were known as a soft touch) and got us winning, built our reputation and confidence and gradually dropped your hard working Palacios/Zokoras/oharas and introduced more passers to play attractive football. That was a proper transition.
Using other clubs, Mourinho goes to Chelsea and Inter Milan and instantly picks up wins with his system. Wenger got up and running quite quickly at Arsenal. Mancini did ok and built on it (ok I know with 100s ££).
With the fixtures we have had, I'd have thought it would be perfect for players to put into practise a new system. However, I'm not even sure what the system is. I know what system people associate with AVB, I dont see that happening on the pitch. And I know people say Defoe up front on his own is not what AVB wants to do, but why not ask the players to temporarily play a different system ? seems kind of silly to say "you cant play this system, but please go and do it anyway". In business its known as tactical (short term) and strategic (long term goal).
They're also playing against professional footballers. The margins are so fine in the Premier League nowadays that if the team hasn't clicked yet - then they can put in some really poor, dis-jonted performances.How long should it take? A few weeks. They are PROFESSIONAL footballers after all
How long will it take? A few months probably ...
How long do people think that it takes for a manager and his coaching team to get a team playing in a new way? How long does it take to bed in new tactics?
If the system actually works it normally does instantly. You need a system that works instantly as well as develops into a longer term vision.
Using our own club examples, Jol took over and instantly got the team playing. HR took over and instantly picked up results, in fact I know people like to make Harry out as an idiot but what he did at Spurs was very clever. He changed the mentality by buying or playing tough physical players (we were known as a soft touch) and got us winning, built our reputation and confidence and gradually dropped your hard working Palacios/Zokoras/oharas and introduced more passers to play attractive football. That was a proper transition.
Using other clubs, Mourinho goes to Chelsea and Inter Milan and instantly picks up wins with his system. Wenger got up and running quite quickly at Arsenal. Mancini did ok and built on it (ok I know with 100s ££).
With the fixtures we have had, I'd have thought it would be perfect for players to put into practise a new system. However, I'm not even sure what the system is. I know what system people associate with AVB, I dont see that happening on the pitch. And I know people say Defoe up front on his own is not what AVB wants to do, but why not ask the players to temporarily play a different system ? seems kind of silly to say "you cant play this system, but please go and do it anyway". In business its known as tactical (short term) and strategic (long term goal).
How long is a piece of string? There are so many factors to consider I dont think there is a straight anwer.
How close is the "new" playing style to the old?
Does the manager have the players needed for his change?
Are the players used to in depth instruction or not?
Is it a young or an old squad?
Can the manager communicate effectively?
Is the dressing room receptive?
Can the change be 'tweaking' the old system, or does it need to be torn down and rebuilt?
And loads more besides, I have no doubt.
Sometimes its a smooth and natural transition, sometimes its more of a blunt force approach
Very much so.
It also depends on how adaptable and intelligent the players are. Whether they have the capacity and understanding for fully implementing whatever new ideas the manager brings.
And that is something which is not immediately apparent in many cases.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.