You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Have we really made progress ?
December 7 2023 10.32pm

Have we really made progress ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 6 of 6 << First< 2 3 4 5 6

 

View TheExpatEagle's Profile TheExpatEagle Flag 26 Oct 18 8.45pm Send a Private Message to TheExpatEagle Add TheExpatEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Iíll attempt to answer this. I think the Prem average when the manager goes from it running well to they canít get a tune or response out of the players is around 18 months. That would involve 3 transfer windows and about the time a manager can really make the team and quite a bit of the squad his own. Therefore if he can get it fitting together nicely, he can also cause it to come apart at the seams, and that may also include things like bad man management over a long enough period of time that the disgruntlement sets in and spreads. This is English footballers and not the Italian players that graduated with discipline, or they didnít make it. Think Fabio Capello.

With Palace itíll have a lot to do with 2 transfer windows during the 8-12 months. Parish and the board will give the manager a first budget thatís competitive and realistic. The 2nd transfer window or maybe next season and possibly 3rd window the manager will receive a budget thatís not competitive enough, risking the Prem status and the managerís record. If itís not because the club have to itíll be because Parish and/or the board have seen the manager do such a good job and decide he can deliver the same again, or less on a smaller budget but enough to scrape by in 17th. Or theyíll think (hope) that there are 3 worse teams than us so 17th based on that every season is achievable, only now the promoted teams are different spending and confident ball playing teams.

Part of these good window followed by bad windows repeats are because of the fire fighting. There is a vicious circle going on and sometimes the manager has experienced the good and bad or experienced just the bad. The club then canít afford a good window due to FFP or they think (hope) heíll deliver outstanding work from an imbalanced squad that deserves to be bottom 4-5 all season unless again they over spend in January on the players that were needed to begin with in August.

The management of this, the scouting and planning has been very bad, and some of the football philosophy changes with Pardew and Frank were so naive itís almost unbelievable. Parish does a great job of fire fighting, up to now, but to begin with the decisions leave us vulnerable, and then the vicious circles begin. The question is, will it send us into a tailspin? Letís hope not.

Shouldíve had a football man say it how it is, but Parish likes acquiescent people desperate for work. Anybody who speaks up leaves. There has to be an understanding and some challenging from both in that relationship but I get the impression that for the reasons above, the managers are wasting their time saying anything once theyíve delivered the first survival. Sometimes Parish will be right to stick to the decisions but a lot of the time the manager will be under pressure because of the previous fire fight or more of them.

Thanks for the long, well explained and thought out reply. I agree with everything you said.

Today Neil Warnock said the club had the chance to sign Virgil van Dijk from Celtic for £6m before he went to Southampton but the chief scout vetoed it because he though the player was too slow. If true this says a lot.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheExpatEagle's Profile TheExpatEagle Flag 26 Oct 18 8.50pm Send a Private Message to TheExpatEagle Add TheExpatEagle as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

New Managers that initialy have success are often working off the back of the last manager, when they have contradictory styles. It happens time and time again - most notably, and successfully in the PL era when Wenger took over from Graham at Arsenal. Arsenal were a very solid team not conceeding too many goals, and not scoring a whole load either. Wenger came in, built on that and added european flair (and tbf a while lot of fitness regimes) and he had for a long time a good balanced side. Another example is Ranieri's Leicester.
Now look at The managers above. Each one had a period of success until their own style became dominant, and they Lost the benefits of their predecessors style:

Holloway - primarily attacking and expressive football.
Pulis - Defensive minded. added organisation adn defensive steel to Holloways expression. (left before style was ingrainied fully)
Pardew - flair and attacking, inherited a team from Pulis which was already in a good place. s
Allardyce - disciplined and Organised, 'Retired' early, although early indications was that he wasn't reverting to his 'long ball' reputation.
FDB - Tried to take Allardyces well oiled diesel engine and turn it into a v6(without buying any of The parts!)
Hodgson - again disciplined and Organised, inherited a squad that showed signs of the work FDB was doing, and added organisation to it.

With the exception of Fergie, who was the only manager that managed to reinvent his squad several times over his tenure, It seems to me that this is why all managers only last a maximum of 18-24 months. The really good managers are able to achieve when either taking over at a club playing a similar style(see Guardiola) or once that period is up and his style is dominant, still continues to Get success (see Pochettino)

Thanks for your reply. Another good and well thought out reply.

The only thing I'd say is that though Pardew inherited the team from Pulis it did just have 4 months of Warnock's philosophy so Pardew should get a little more credit for the start he made.

That said, I'm not a fan of either Pulis or Pardew and I'm not one who likes to knock Warnock.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View est1905's Profile est1905 Flag 27 Oct 18 5.35pm Send a Private Message to est1905 Add est1905 as a friend

Originally posted by TheExpatEagle

Thanks for the long, well explained and thought out reply. I agree with everything you said.

Today Neil Warnock said the club had the chance to sign Virgil van Dijk from Celtic for £6m before he went to Southampton but the chief scout vetoed it because he though the player was too slow. If true this says a lot.

I was told by someone I know that knows far more about the internal politics at Palace than any of us that VvD was indeed close to joining Palace and that we backed away from the deal believing he was too expensive. Southampton apparently only got a sniff of signing him because Palace walked away

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 6 of 6 << First< 2 3 4 5 6

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Have we really made progress ?