As thetopgeezer says, we will never know if we would have won these games under Vieria, but I am interested in the idea of this being 'Roy V2.0'.

Whilst coaches and managers can evolve and change, I find it difficult to believe that a man in his mid-70s would, for a ten-game interim stint, develop and implement radically different coaching methods to those he has used for the previous 45 years.

In any event, seeking to compare Vieria and 'Hodgson V2.0' after three games of the latter is perhaps an example of what, for me, is an increasingly common idea: that managers win and lose individual matches. That is a theory I cannot subscribe to.

A manager may make subs to influence proceedings, but that is a very limited impact indeed, and very often overestimated. Key moments in a game are down to our players, their players, quality, confidence, a bit of luck and the general random element of football.

A manager may opt for different tactics and selections from game to game, but it's football and not chess. Any given 90-minute Palace performance is primarily down to our players (their application, individual mental and physical condition and most importantly, quality) once the whistle goes.

Good and bad runs of form (five to ten games either way) are part of football. It is possible for a manager to cause a catastrophe in a short period of time by playing everybody in the wrong positions, in a system that the players are not capable of implementing (for which see: DeBoer, F), but apart from instilling some defensive shape to a team, it is almost impossible for a manager to make a set of players significantly better, especially in a positive attacking sense, simply through coaching and tactics alone. In any event, both Vieria and Hodgson used fairly traditional, non-radical tactics and selections designed, over the course of a season, to achieve the clubs aims. The same set of players in the same formation will often look pretty good for periods and less so for others, but that is natural - you just enjoy the good times and ride out the bad ones.

Underperformance over a wider period (half a season upwards), relative to the quality of the squad and stability of the club, is down to the manager. Like others, I am on the fence as to whether Vieira was ever seriously guilty of this.

Performance over a two-to-four-year period is down to the DoF and the club. That is the average period in which a given squad of players work together, and time enough for planning, recruitment etc to be implemented and bear fruit. Very few managers now control these aspects of a club, so can't take responsibility for them.

The long-term health of the club (financial position, facilities, assets etc) is down to the owner, board and chairman. Though a manager may influence the club's health by under or over-performing, neither state of affairs is likely to last very long (underperformance results in the sack so quickly now, while overperformance means everybody moves on to bigger clubs). The days when a Shankly, Busby, Clough or Ferguson built and ran a club are long gone.

Of course, a new manager may fancy a certain player more than his predecessor (would Eze have been so central to our team under Vieria in the last three games?), which in turn may give that player a confidence boost, but it's not a PlayStation game. Once the whistle goes, Hodgson isn't controlling the players any more than Vieira was. Three games is not only far too short a period to assess Roy's impact but also far too short to compare the team under him to that under Vieira.

The fabled 'new manager effect' may be relevant in the very short term, but that is often more to do with the players getting a jolt following the sacking of the last manager which, if they are honest, reflects poorly on them. One or two may have an extra spring in their step because they are glad to see the old manager leave, but that isn't something the new manager can claim credit for.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (20 Apr 2023 11.02am)

A very well albeit asserted view on things.

Have to say I am unsure as to whether it constitutes an 'opposing' opinion however I would, with equal longevity, suggest:

PV's management/his presence had seemingly affected the mood around the club and the players. His alleged behaving bizarrely, avoiding the board, publicly criticising players, general demeanour demonstrating aloofness etc. looks a very believable narrative. This affect on mentality, confidence, inspiration/motivation and morale (joint adventure) will inevitably have a detrimental effect on performances. We saw that on the pitch.

The statistics didn't lie around PV's team; our work-rate, efforts on goal, actual goals etc etc were also in evidence, or rather lacking in evidence. That surely has to be a coaching issue both around tactics and training. Anybody who attends or even watches games as regularly if not more frequently than I would be able to tell any non-observer that something looked seriously wrong and the results/stats backed this.

Roy's coming in may not be worthy of hailing him as some sort of reformed messiah however at the very least the squad was objectively underperforming and underachieving with PV as coach, which threatened our PL survival as a start, and Roy's return looks to have mitigated and thus far completely reversed that. As has been mentioned by plenty, including by me, I find it hard to believe anybody has absolute insight into Roy's entire career and equally would be hard tasked to suggest he had a wealth of talent here previously and was underutilising it or employing it in an incorrect and negative way. He also delivered on his mandate despite the deficiencies and limitations of that group. The team looks far better on paper now and what we may have seen before, and have seen in this very brief stint, is a pragmatic approach Roy takes and is therefore different now given the talent he has at his disposal.

So to summarise, I find it hard to believe we went three months struggling to score and without winning a single game under PV but then under Roy won three on the bounce with the team shooting and scoring for fun and this had nothing to do at all with the man in the dugout. Yes, the players have to shoulder their share of responsibility however the manager is there to, you know, manage them. This includes responsibility for their mental and physical health as well as their instructions for playing competitive football. Whether Roy is employing a completely new approach, has slightly amended it from previously given the different resource available, or is just much preferable for the team opposed to PV, I think the move was the correct call by Parish and co. He has a number of games left to see what the bigger picture and therefore analysis of his return will be however the team look unrecognisable contrasted to the last few months and certainly under Roy previously, suggesting something has inspired a change in his approach.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

To me the indisputable facts (but I've probably added up wrong !) are that in 3 games under Roy we have earned 9 points and scored 9 points, more than we did in the last 15 games under PV (8 points and 7 goals). More in 3 games than in 15 ! That is not just about luck, or about a difficult run of fixtures - it's about management capability. I liked PV and was very appreciative of his 1st season, but he had lost his way completely in my view.

As a few of us have said, we will never know what kind of people Vieira and Hodgson are to work for, so it's very difficult to attach any weight to the narrative that the former was aloof and the latter an antidote.

That said, this interview (go to 48:30) is very interesting regarding the kind of guy Roy is. The interviewee was a masuer for Manchester United and England and, as you can hear, has only very nice things to say about Hodgson....

[Link]

Edited by TheBigToePunt (22 Apr 2023 11.16am)

Decent post that. I don’t think there can be any argument about the good and bad times of both managers.

Well said, (if I may).

I used to think that Roy Hodgson would rather win 1-0 than 5-0.! He had that stamp of an Italian manager about him.
I think I'm right in saying that when he managed Blackburn, he presided over a 2-7 win at Sheffield Wednesday the game before they came to Selhurst. Bruce Dyer scored, although we lost. Colin Hendry got knocked out and carried off, which seemed an impossibility...

So, clearly, Roy Hodgson does know what to do with a talented squad. But the football Palace played in the last days of his last tenure was dire, so it's good that he is signing off on a high. Vieira had to go and Parish could not have waited another game. We'll never know, but i think all this hand-wringing by the likes of garth Crooks is just bunkum. No way would palace have scored nine against Leicester, Leeds, Southampton! They's gone about three games without a shot on target.

Quiz - Name the PL manager who has not lost a single match this session so far?

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

This was the first game I knew somthing was not right with the team.

I think a lot of what you say makes sense and the board did let him down. However I expect most managers will tell you that their board makes promises they don't keep.

The burden of being a manager is to make the best of what you got and PV didn't do that.

A good manager would have got those players going and then quit for a better job.

One more point