If you’re like me than occasionally you get jaded by players who don’t give their all.
Players will often say, “I’m my worst critic.”
And that’s true for a player who cares.
Was it ever, "What could have been for RH at Liverpool?"
But for players like–let’s say–Erick Dampier in the NBA or Roque Santa Cruz or Emmanuel Adebayor in the EPL–it’s easy to see–when they jog back in to place after a restart or are seen huffing and puffing in a game played at a high tempo–that there is a very big “ME” in their “T-E-A-M.”
Or maybe the team doesn’t matter at all.
I often don’t fault the coaches who must deal with a wide range of different players, their egos, their will to win, etc.
To clarify, I’m not suggesting the average soccer player is not a team player. I’m merely setting the stage for the wide assortment of different parts a manager must arrange coerce to put a winning product on the field.
With that qualifier out of the way, there is certainly a blatant and troubling trend happening in the head management of the game and it goes by the label “rigidness.”
And this weekend, it cost Roy Hodgson, rightfully, his job at Liverpool.
While players may choose not to conform, more and more you’re seeing coaches not evaluating their talent and refusing to deviate from a system that curtails its abilities to a system that matches that talent.
Let’s stick the NBA analogy for a second if you will and look at the situation in Miami where the Heat have finally ironed out some kinks and look to be close to the team many had imagined at the beginning of the season.
Rigid in the early going...
Under the direction of Eric Spolestra, Miami adopted a defense-first and slow tempo mentality presumably because this is the system that Eric Spolestra was schooled in as a disciple of Pat Riley.
It took nearly 25 games for the Heat to even experiment with the notion of “Hey, maybe with these two out-of-this world open court players we should play more frenetically.”
Rigidness in Miami.
(Which is somewhat ironic since Pat Riley is perhaps the best–he and Larry Brown are neck-and-neck–chameleon of the coaching box. Riley won playing fast break ball with the Showtime Lakers in the ’80s, then took a Knicks team filled primarily with bruisers (remember Anthony Mason) and parlayed that collection of skillsets into a near Title Run, then came down to Miami and essentially adopted the Larry Brown School of Iverson schematic to etch out a title with in Miami.)
Malleability, a critical ingredient to success for coaches. Now that Spolestra has become flexibile outside his “system,” the Heat are having success.
In soccer, you’re seeing the early-season-Spolestra-Riley contrast play out in a major way in 2010. One one hand you have coach like the Special(ist) One in Jose Mourinho who, coming off a treblific (trademark!) season at Inter, is now shepherding an offensive game at the Bernebeau, Barcelona game non-withstanding.
Or a coach like Owen Coyle who has taken a decidedly average roster at Bolton and revved up what is typically one of the more boring and static teams in the Premieship. Name a major acquisition for Coyle in his time at Bolton beyond Stu Holden, and maybe Martin Petrov?
You can’t, Coyle just employed the right attacking system; mind you not the system he used at Burnley.
On the flip side, you have the gaggle of coaches like Roy Hodgson, Mark Hughes and Gerard Houllier who are trying to shoehorn players into the incorrect systems.
Hey Roy, with Fernando Torres and Steven “You didn’t know I only play defense in spurts” Gerrard, did you really think an out-and-out conservative defensive-minded game plan is going to work.
It’s obviously didn’t work and a 3-1 thrashing at Blackburn…let me repeat that….at Blackburn for a team, in Liverpool, who have some offensive pep and just who sat and absorbed pressure all day long, was the final and appropriate commentary on Hodgson’s reign.
Conversely, Mark Hughes is working with Hodgson’s former team, the Cottagers, and trying to squeeze those pieces into the look he formerly had at Manchester City even without Bobby Zamora or a suitable replacement. He’s still trying though with Fulham hugging the relegation line tightly.
Houllier is a little closer to the dreaded "R" word right now.
Moving northward on the Isle, you have Gerard Houllier (the true impetus for me writing this column) who initially failed to recognize his lack of defensive integrity or overall talent level and goes head-to-head with the likes of Tottenham and Manchester City.
That’s like a boxer with a short reach trying to take down an opponent with a longer one. You can flail all you want, you’re still not going to hit him. But one haymaker from the giant–for Manchester City there were four last Tuesday–and it’s tweety birds.
Only now with the acquisition of Kyle Walker and perhaps pending acquisition of Wayne Bridge is Houllier addressing his defensive deficiency. Hint, hint, Gerard, you probably should have morphed more slowly so your team didn’t sit at the bottom leg of the table.
Why is it that a player is faulted when they don’t conform or buy into a system, but a coach typically is not?
Since these are coaches at the highest level, it should be expected that they can dovetail a system to fit the parts.
I wonder how that conversation went when Fulham were interviewing Mark Hughes.
Fulham: “So Mark you plan on running a 4-3-3 and an uptempo game, huh? You know that Clint Dempsey and Zoltan Gera, both good players, are not track meet material, right?”
Hughes: “Hadn’t thought of that.”
But the management is accountable as well. Continuing on with that Hughes conversation.
Fulham: “Okay, well good luck with that. We’re perfectly fine if you depreciate our assets and get us relegated. Happy to back you in the transfer window when you only get, at most, 50% of the assets you were hoping for so you still can’t pull it off.”
Now the next question is, “Is this rigidness a staunch belief in a “way of doing business” so to speak or is a lack of education on other systems.”
I’m going to go with the latter here. First, its extremely hard to master a system, gain it’s nuances, that is not practiced year-in and year-out. The intimacy with the system–the tweaks on a per game basis with the foundation of the system itself–are what give the system life.
Secondly, when does a manager get to practice multiple systems on the job and learn about them. A manager, like a player, is both prestige and financially motivated as well. Do they get a chance to cultivate their career and put it through the reps? Not often as much as a player does.
Made through the entire column without referencing Bob Bradley. Kudos to me.
Subscribe to TSG via RSS
Posted by John on 2011/01/08 at 9:07 AM
As a Liverpool fan, I take no joy in finding Roy removed from his position. I do feel that this is the best for the club, however Roy is not a terrible person or coach.
He is just the wrong coach for this team.
I don’t feel that any of the points I made in my original piece ever changed. If anything Roy became more strident as the poor performances piled up. He repeatedly said that he wouldn’t change anything. He cottoned to Ferguson by not insisting (even if it wasn’t true) that Liverpool wouldn’t sell Torres.
He just had foot in mouth disease on an epic level. Really the final nail in the coffin was criticizing the fan support. He just said so many daft things in the press and the team didn’t fit his strategy.
Repeatedly playing Raul Miereles out of position, the Poulson mistake, the fight with Agger, the statements such as the “famous” win in Trazbonspor, Paul Konchesky, not to mention the fact that he was placed by the Interim Board…. well.. Roy…
It was difficult but you were the wrong man for the job. I wish you well going forward.
The difficulty now lies in the fact that Liverpool have swung in the direction of Newcastle and only the future knows whether or not Kenny ends up resurrecting the squad to get out of the bottom half or whether they go Alan Shearer into the relegation battle.
Posted by John on 2011/01/08 at 9:09 AM
Oh, and I heard that Bob Bradley is trying to get Christian Poulson in Mid Field because he needs someone slow and turnover prone in the defensive mid area.
Posted by ahm on 2011/01/08 at 6:07 PM
first comment on this site, been following silently for awhile. this is a great comment, liverpool’s performances are not just down to roy, who clearly has some credibility as a manager, but the players must also take some accountability. if they expect to qualify for the CL now just because roy is gone, they’re insane. with all of that being said, roy really did need to go. this article is incredibly accurate in underlining how his rigidity cost him his job. respect needs to be earned, not just demanded, and his actions in the press were truly bizarre. tactically, one shouldn’t get too caught up in formations, a 4-4-1-1 can be awfully similar to a 4-2-3-1 so it really is all about application. however, if i had to go through one more match of raul meireles playing wide right, with roy’s beloved “two banks of four” sitting back absorbing pressure, i think my head would’ve exploded. the talent on this roster is mediocre and there is certainly some carnage from the end of the benitez era, milan jovanovic is honestly just a stale fart hanging around at this point, but it certainly can achieve an upper-mid table finish. best of luck to the king, it is quite a gamble to bring back an icon out of management for 20 years but hopefully things will turn around.
final note: i’m totally fine if torres leaves, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. carra is one of the few people on this team who can look himself in the mirror in terms of effort this half of the campaign
–sorry for rambling
Posted by ahm on 2011/01/08 at 6:16 PM
also, by the “going gets tough” i meant fernando never got going. he sulked, like a pampered star. horrible
Posted by dude on 2011/01/08 at 9:39 AM
I think on some level it’s a combination of the fact players are naturally prone to certain actions on the pitch, and coaches are egotistical enough to think they can change them. Now if you want That players qualities in That position, great. But Gareth Barry and James Milner both have to feel that they enjoyed game time way more at Villa.
Posted by BernieBernier on 2011/01/08 at 10:59 AM
Interesting take. As a Fulham fan I wonder how much of the blame is on Hughes versus ownership. Did ownership say hey we almost won the Europa League we now think we should play like a top 5 (or 10) team? Did they want the fast paced style that Hughes was going to bring without buying the right players to adjust to this new style?
In hiring Hughes I took that as Fulham has aspirations to be like Villa had been in past years. The problem was we didn’t buy anyone new to fit that new style. Obviously the injury to Zamora hurt but I don’t see Dempsey or Gera as the problem. To me the problem is that they have two defensive minded mids in a formation and strategy that dictates attack. Honestly what they need is an offensive CM (which is why I assume they picked up Sidwell).
Posted by matthewsf on 2011/01/08 at 2:57 PM
It’s a good question, but you have to have the horses…and I don’t see Fulham (Steve Sidwell?) doing much in this transfer window or being even rumored to.
Posted by BernieBernier on 2011/01/08 at 4:37 PM
I think its a little tough to say they don’t have the horse since they have been hit hard by injuries. With Zamora Fulham would have a couple more goals as AJ, EJ, Kamara (would make a really good Championship level player), are crap. A couple more goals might mean 6 or so more points given all of Fulham’s draws. That would make them somewhere between 7th and 10th. That would make a huge difference in how everyone looks at the season and Hughes’ performance.
Posted by SamT on 2011/01/10 at 8:55 AM
And we’ve made it through 8 posts without mentioning Bob Bradley as well… But it has to be asked.
I’m a believer that BB is more pragmatic and less rigid than he is typically given credit. The system is a function of (Bob’s view) of the horses (that Bob has chosen). You can argue with his view, and I suppose you can argue with his selections, but it’s hard to argue that he’s being rigid.
I also buy into the argument that a national team has limited time with its players to test and refine new systems.
Posted by i like tuesday on 2011/01/10 at 9:44 AM
I think you’re a bit unfair on Fulham/Hughes. They’ve played pretty well compared to a side like Liverpool or even Villa. But they’ve had some tough, close results against the top clubs. The bottom half of the table is crowded this season so Fulham look precariously close to relegation contenders, like everyone else in the bottom half. There just aren’t any really terrible teams the prop up the table this year. I still think Fulham will finish as a top-half team. My annual “Liverpool to be relegated” bet looks set for a big payoff though with Dalglish off to an inauspicious start.
Posted by GeorgeCross on 2011/01/10 at 10:27 AM
I see Liverpool have Steve Clark. Got to be one of the most under rated (defensive) coaches out there. Liverpool would do well to keep hold of him in some capacity. One of the worst decisions Chelsea ever made was to let him go.