Dougie Freedman - Ten Months On

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

Never said that... what I suggested was that a manager has a number of powerful ways to influence a game. If he does A he may well see X achieved but nobody's saying it's guaranteed, on the other hand if he does B then Y might occur, but never ever do C, because every time you do C you are almost bound to get Z and you don't want that.

...what has happened here is that BWFCi has put forward the general argument that managers can't really change a game once it has started...

Yep, this entire strand developed because I said managers have a number of powerful ways in which they can influence a game, and I cannot see how anybody cannot see that that is obvious. But hey ho.

[LeverEnd]

Of course it's a way to influence a game but my point is that of all the things to judge a manager on, sub decisions are way down the list. How many times does a manager make the sub that everyone is crying out for, and it makes no difference at all? Quite often I'd say. It's down to the opposition reaction and the reaction of his own players. He might make a completely correct choice at the time that results in a heavier defeat. Subs are useful for fresh legs, rarely an indication of tactical nous IMO.

[bobo the clown]

Of course it's a way to influence a game but my point is that of all the things to judge a manager on, sub decisions are way down the list. How many times does a manager make the sub that everyone is crying out for, and it makes no difference at all? Quite often I'd say. It's down to the opposition reaction and the reaction of his own players. He might make a completely correct choice at the time that results in a heavier defeat. Subs are useful for fresh legs, rarely an indication of tactical nous IMO.

May I just say .... 2-0 up; Ivan Klasnic off; Gavin McCann on.

THAT one had an impact.

That's all.

As you were.

[BWFC_Insane]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

i don't believe anyone was claiming it was that simple, were they?

Constantly. Like, constantly.

^not true!

what has happened here is that BWFCi has put forward the general argument that managers can't really change a game once it has started - which he is now not-so-subtly pretending was a specific argument that Dougie sets the team up so perfectly at the start that it would be impossible to make it any better given the resources he has...

The point I was making is that it is relatively rare that a manager performs some sort of masterstroke, shape changing, game changing substitute that tactically outwits the opposition. Very very rare. Of course substitutes can change games. But if you're losing and you bring on a goalscorer and he scores a goal that doesn't equate to some sort of genius game changing move. Just that on one particular occassion a decision paid off. Call it a good decision if you like.

Of course there are examples of managers changing shape during a game working. But I maintain its not very common and it doesn't happen every week. There are also examples of managers changing shape and fecking it up. Mancini was notorious at City for going 3 at the back and causing mayhem as they couldn't defend in that system.

And Pru is right you can't start judging either way on isolated incidents. If a pattern emerges where you get it right more often than not then that is good. However if it is the other way then you begin to wonder. For example who is to say that on Saturday the substituions made didn't enable us to get a point? The introduction of Moritz and Craig Davies may well have freshened things up at just the right time to prevent Reading getting too much pressure on us and eventually scoring. My point is not THAT WAS THE CASE, but just that we don't know either way.

If you want to take Coyle as an example, in his first year here he'd bring an extra striker on for a midfield player or a winger and we'd sometimes win the game. I remember Klasnic at Stoke. He kept on doing it in our relegation year, despite the fact we were being overrun in midfield as it was. Now you can say the first couple of times he did it fine. But to keep making the same error and continually take drawing positions to losing ones, suggests that there is an issue. He may well point to the first season and a bit he was here, but you have to adapt to what is happening and also take stock of the way games are going. I remember at Norwich we'd scrapped through 50 odd minutes playing 1 up and were holding out for a 0-0 just. He brings Kevin Davies on as a second striker and bang 5-10 minutes later Norwich go right through us and score. If that was the first/last time he did it then you'd say "well one of those things". But to do the same thing again and again with the same result was the issue.

DSB joked that my feeling that we should have maybe moved Pratley inside and brought a winger on was very "Coyle-esque". But he's probably right. It is the sort of thing that he'd do. We'd been struggling for 25 minutes against Reading, perhaps taking solidity out of our shape was the very worst thing that Freedman could have done? So perhaps we should be praising him for not doing that and getting the point?

What it boils down to is, how does it look over time. Rather than isolated incidents.

[BWFC_Insane]

Of course it's a way to influence a game but my point is that of all the things to judge a manager on, sub decisions are way down the list. How many times does a manager make the sub that everyone is crying out for, and it makes no difference at all? Quite often I'd say. It's down to the opposition reaction and the reaction of his own players. He might make a completely correct choice at the time that results in a heavier defeat. Subs are useful for fresh legs, rarely an indication of tactical nous IMO.

May I just say .... 2-0 up; Ivan Klasnic off; Gavin McCann on.

THAT one had an impact.

That's all.

As you were.

Hull had scored before that change was made. It was 2-1.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So, basically you are saying managers can't influence a game, and then go on to say but they do. Cake and eating.
Isolated incidents, as you put it, become, over time, a pattern. So whether you look at either the holistic pattern or analyse the individual incidents, you are still examing whatever it is that defines a good/bad manager.

The criteria I will be judging Dougie on as to whether he is a good or a bad manager can be enumerated. In descending order they are:
1. The position we end up in at the end of the season
2. The makeup of the squad in terms of the players he has bought, loaned, or brought through
3. The individual decisions he makes on a game by game basis (which include who he has picked, and what subs he has made)
4. His interviews and how from them I perceive his personality
5. The relationship he has with club and players

[bobo the clown]

Of course it's a way to influence a game but my point is that of all the things to judge a manager on, sub decisions are way down the list. How many times does a manager make the sub that everyone is crying out for, and it makes no difference at all? Quite often I'd say. It's down to the opposition reaction and the reaction of his own players. He might make a completely correct choice at the time that results in a heavier defeat. Subs are useful for fresh legs, rarely an indication of tactical nous IMO.

May I just say .... 2-0 up; Ivan Klasnic off; Gavin McCann on.

THAT one had an impact.

That's all.

As you were.

Hull had scored before that change was made. It was 2-1.

... and thus devastating the point I'm making ???

[Lord Kangana]

Obliterated. By 50%.

[BWFC_Insane]

Of course it's a way to influence a game but my point is that of all the things to judge a manager on, sub decisions are way down the list. How many times does a manager make the sub that everyone is crying out for, and it makes no difference at all? Quite often I'd say. It's down to the opposition reaction and the reaction of his own players. He might make a completely correct choice at the time that results in a heavier defeat. Subs are useful for fresh legs, rarely an indication of tactical nous IMO.

May I just say .... 2-0 up; Ivan Klasnic off; Gavin McCann on.

THAT one had an impact.

That's all.

As you were.

Hull had scored before that change was made. It was 2-1.

... and thus devastating the point I'm making ???

No but it puts a different slant on it.

The game had already turned in Hull's favour with Klasnic on the field. We were already struggling.

Its not like bringing McCann on was the turn of the game. It didn't help, of course. But things were already going wrong by that point. Panic had set in.

[CAPSLOCK]

So, basically you are saying managers can't influence a game, and then go on to say but they do. Cake and eating.
Isolated incidents, as you put it, become, over time, a pattern. So whether you look at either the holistic pattern or analyse the individual incidents, you are still examing whatever it is that defines a good/bad manager.

The criteria I will be judging Dougie on as to whether he is a good or a bad manager can be enumerated. In descending order they are:
1. The position we end up in at the end of the season
2. The makeup of the squad in terms of the players he has bought, loaned, or brought through
3. The individual decisions he makes on a game by game basis (which include who he has picked, and what subs he has made)
4. His interviews and how from them I perceive his personality
5. The relationship he has with club and players

How the bollocks does 4 get above 5?

And 1 and 2 are all that matter, anyway...even 2 is arguable

[Hoboh]

So, basically you are saying managers can't influence a game, and then go on to say but they do. Cake and eating.
Isolated incidents, as you put it, become, over time, a pattern. So whether you look at either the holistic pattern or analyse the individual incidents, you are still examing whatever it is that defines a good/bad manager.

The criteria I will be judging Dougie on as to whether he is a good or a bad manager can be enumerated. In descending order they are:
1. The position we end up in at the end of the season
2. The makeup of the squad in terms of the players he has bought, loaned, or brought through
3. The individual decisions he makes on a game by game basis (which include who he has picked, and what subs he has made)
4. His interviews and how from them I perceive his personality
5. The relationship he has with club and players

How the bollocks does 4 get above 5?

And 1 and 2 are all that matter, anyway...even 2 is arguable

Don't be daft!
2 is a crucial part of 1

[Lord Kangana]

Anyway, where's the rucksacks full of rocks/Winter Hill equation fit into that list?

[Hoboh]

Anyway, where's the rucksacks full of rocks/Winter Hill equation fit into that list?

Rumour was DF was already that type of guy, seems it don't work because according to BWFCi we still run out of legs!

[Lord Kangana]

Have you ever seen a gushing schoolgirl defend the man she's got a crush on hoboh? Methinks you're about to find out.

[Hoboh]

Have you ever seen a gushing schoolgirl defend the man she's got a crush on hoboh? Methinks you're about to find out.

[BWFC_Insane]

Anyway, where's the rucksacks full of rocks/Winter Hill equation fit into that list?

Rumour was DF was already that type of guy, seems it don't work because according to BWFCi we still run out of legs!

When the hell did I ever say that Dougie has them running up winter fecking hill? Allardyce didn't have them running up winter hill either.

And lets see how our fitness goes over the season.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So, basically you are saying managers can't influence a game, and then go on to say but they do. Cake and eating.
Isolated incidents, as you put it, become, over time, a pattern. So whether you look at either the holistic pattern or analyse the individual incidents, you are still examing whatever it is that defines a good/bad manager.

The criteria I will be judging Dougie on as to whether he is a good or a bad manager can be enumerated. In descending order they are:
1. The position we end up in at the end of the season
2. The makeup of the squad in terms of the players he has bought, loaned, or brought through
3. The individual decisions he makes on a game by game basis (which include who he has picked, and what subs he has made)
4. His interviews and how from them I perceive his personality
5. The relationship he has with club and players

How the bollocks does 4 get above 5?

And 1 and 2 are all that matter, anyway...even 2 is arguable

4 gets above 5 because it's my criteria and I say so. I don't really give a monkeys if the club and players don't like him, but I do. If he gets us promoted him and Eddie can have stand up spats all day long.

...and (sorry LK, I forgot)
6. Does he use rucksacks full of rocks sending his players to the top of Winter Hill in training or not.

[Hoboh]

Anyway, where's the rucksacks full of rocks/Winter Hill equation fit into that list?

Rumour was DF was already that type of guy, seems it don't work because according to BWFCi we still run out of legs!

When the hell did I ever say that Dougie has them running up winter fecking hill? Allardyce didn't have them running up winter hill either.

And lets see how our fitness goes over the season.

Whoosh!!!

Freedman is supposed to be a hard training taskmaster, thats the point!
The rucksacks and bricks was hoboh's cheap alternative to spending loads of dosh on backroom witchdoctors when we had no cash for players or as a club and could only play for 45, sound familier?

[Lord Kangana]

On the point of fitness, I do recall in the summer of '96 seeing Tomo road running (if I remember rightly down Chorley New), and various reports in the papers that the squad generally were determined to be ready from the off for the new season. I remember seeing the squad doing warm ups on the first day at Port Vale, all fresh with their crew cuts and looking much fitter than they had the previous season.

I'm sure much of that was down to individual effort, as much as they'd been told what to do (Todd, as I recall, wasn't "renowned for his fitnees work" - they 'd all pschologically bought into the ethos and imperative of promotion, and it showed.

So in summary? I'm not sure, maybe you can lead a horse to water?

[BWFC_Insane]

On the point of fitness, I do recall in the summer of '96 seeing Tomo road running (if I remember rightly down Chorley New), and various reports in the papers that the squad generally were determined to be ready from the off for the new season. I remember seeing the squad doing warm ups on the first day at Port Vale, all fresh with their crew cuts and looking much fitter than they had the previous season.

I'm sure much of that was down to individual effort, as much as they'd been told what to do (Todd, as I recall, wasn't "renowned for his fitnees work" - they 'd all pschologically bought into the ethos and imperative of promotion, and it showed.

So in summary? I'm not sure, maybe you can lead a horse to water?

If we can take this down a sensible route....I'm sure the majority of football players are "fit" in terms of being able to run a long way or having the right body fat to muscle ratios etc. I'm sure that the diets and all that are on the whole vastly improved.

The thing now is presumably the fine tuning of that fitness. For example Andy Murray trains in a way that maximises his chances on a tennis court. I'm sure he could run marathons if he chose to, but presumably tennis is about lots of repeated sprints, bursts of running and changes in direction, and of course strength. So he works tirelessly on those aspects. He does 400M drills, short sprint drills, work where he is constantly changing direction with resistance (a rope attached to a machine). And has a dietary plan that goes alongside it

So the thing is to get footballers tuned in the same way. They need to be fit as a basic but then they need that few percent on top that optimises them for the sort of work they do in the field every day. Which isn't running twenty miles in one go, but short bursts of running, sometimes intense over 90 minutes of action (with a break in the middle).

Footballers in general now seem to talk diets but whether they really buy into it and adhere to the diets I'm not totally convinced. Mark Davies spotted taking a burger king meal on the coach a year or two ago would suggest possibly not. Certainly not in the same way that tennis players and athletes seem to commit to such things.

The other trouble with football is that it's not a "one rule fits all". When Allardyce first saw Nolan he thought he didn't have enough upper body strength. So he got him to do a load of gym work and build that up. But he built a lot of muscle that meant he found it harder to get around the pitch and lost some of his previous athleticism and stamina, so they had to strip back the gym work. For example.