Ratings vs WBA

Bus-Conductor said:

I have to be honest Steve, Liverpool worry me. I do think our squads are quite evenly matched but I do think they have just a smidgen more quality in forward areas, and though I am happy with Poch, I do think Klopp is further down the evolutionary chain.

Click to expand...

For me Klopp is the proven master, whereas Poch is still the apprentice, the fact of which demonstrates the difference in stature of our two clubs. Both are training ground coaches though, they're not in the Terry Venables, Harry Redknapp, Mourinho mould of coach who use their charisma to weld good players into a cohesive unit.

For me the heart of a Poch team and a Klopp team needs to steeped in their methods, and then around that core there can be a certain amount of coming and going; as long as they players who come are identified as have similar mental strength and work ethic to those they've replaced. In this way the training ground gets that spirit of competitiveness and hard work which can then be translated to the pitch.

Which is all a long way round of saying that Klopp's impact in his first season will be related to the spirit of the Liverpool training ground under Rogers and the underlying characters of his players. If they're fighters and workers by nature and their fitness is good then he has a chance of making a quick impact, but if it's not there already, if there are a few who by nature will work in the first couple of weeks but then go back to coasting soon after, then it will be a longer road for Klopp.

I have only managed to watch 20 minutes so far on a very poor internet connection. Can't comment on the over all performance then, but want to make the point that we now know that Poch will rotate heavily sometimes, and that it's not that he's just against the idea in principle, but that he's thinking of some wider context when he does or does not.

steve said:

Can you surmise your post in planer English please? I've read it 3 times and am struggling to understand your point outside of clipperty and charisma being a potential problem. The second paragraph is especially bewildering.

Thanks,

Steve

Click to expand...

Heh, sorry man. I'll try to simplify it. If only english was my first language....

Charismatic leaders are great for change, they are the most motivational leaders you'll find. A good charismatic leader can force through almost any change, as their main strength and what they rely on is getting the staff on their side and working towards a goal. Empiric studies show that the main weakness of the charismatic leader is that they can struggle with consistency over a longer period. If the major change they were brought in to orchestrate has occured, and the change doesn't bring the expected results there will be a significant drop in staff motivation (which, to reiterate, is the main strength of the charismatic leader) and results / performance will suffer. I'm not saying that Klopp doesn't necessarily possess more than charisma, I'm sure he does, but at Dortmund, as soon as things really started going sideways, he wasn't able to turn it around.

While the authoritarian (think military, hard but fair) leadership style that Pochettino prefers is the oldest style we know (in organizational theory) and is proven through the test of time. The main challenge is to satisfy both the motivational and hygiene factors (basically motivation and work satisfaction / feel like you're learning and making progress) and if he can keep those up, it'll give him more respect from the players, more consistency and steadier progress in line with his strategy.


This is all based on Jacobsen & Thorsvik (NTNU professors) course in Organizational Leadership which in turn is entirely based on empiric studies, but as any "casework", if you don't have all the facts, spoken to the leaders in question and know exactly how they work it's never accurate. It's just based on what I've gathered from years of watching both Pochettino and Klopp. (I've seen and studied Klopp more as he is my inspiration when it comes to leadership and closest resembles the kind of leader I want to be, I didn't really watch or read much about Poch at Southampton).

I might even have the technical terms wrong, as I didn't study this in english.

sloth said:

For me Klopp is the proven master, whereas Poch is still the apprentice, the fact of which demonstrates the difference in stature of our two clubs. Both are training ground coaches though, they're not in the Terry Venables, Harry Redknapp, Mourinho mould of coach who use their charisma to weld good players into a cohesive unit.

For me the heart of a Poch team and a Klopp team needs to steeped in their methods, and then around that core there can be a certain amount of coming and going; as long as they players who come are identified as have similar mental strength and work ethic to those they've replaced. In this way the training ground gets that spirit of competitiveness and hard work which can then be translated to the pitch.

Which is all a long way round of saying that Klopp's impact in his first season will be related to the spirit of the Liverpool training ground under Rogers and the underlying characters of his players. If they're fighters and workers by nature and their fitness is good then he has a chance of making a quick impact, but if it's not there already, if there are a few who by nature will work in the first couple of weeks but then go back to coasting soon after, then it will be a longer road for Klopp.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can't really argue against that when their results and merits clearly back your statement.

I wanted Klopp more than anyone so looking for potential weaknesses in his leadership style might just be my jealousy talking.

Colston said:

Fair enough. I can't really argue against that when their results and merits clearly back your statement.

I wanted Klopp more than anyone so looking for potential weaknesses in his leadership style might just be my jealousy talking.

Click to expand...

Just read and liked your post above. As you acknowledge leaders can be more than one kind at the same time. So I agree with you that Klopp is charismatic, but I think he's also a training ground coach. And I found what you said intriguing about what can happen with charismatics when they're followed and yet the desired change doesn't occur.

I also think that, just as with a gambling game, there's the skill inn playing your cards and then the luck of what you draw. Thus a highly skilled poker player can lose to a novice in any given session simply due to getting dealt a higher than usual number of bad hands relative to the other guy's luck in getting good hands at the right time. To spot the skill you have to look at the methods employed and the results over a long period of time. So Klopp's poor final year at BD could be due to what you say and/or misfortune, but his ability over all can be seen over the longer term.

Lilbaz said:

Do we evolve upwards or downwards?

Click to expand...

I suppose "forward" is the best word, but in a random, meandering kind of way.

Lilbaz said:

Is it along the evolutionary path?

Click to expand...

"Along" is a lot closer than "up" or "down", both of which have creationist/moralist/intentional overtones.

Lilbaz said:

Does it have a destination?

Click to expand...

No. In fact the "path" doesn't exist until someone goes along it.

Lilbaz said:

I'm confused

Click to expand...

You're welcome, that will be five pounds, please.

Colston said:

Heh, sorry man. I'll try to simplify it. If only english was my first language....

Charismatic leaders are great for change, they are the most motivational leaders you'll find. A good charismatic leader can force through almost any change, as their main strength and what they rely on is getting the staff on their side and working towards a goal. Empiric studies show that the main weakness of the charismatic leader is that they can struggle with consistency over a longer period. If the major change they were brought in to orchestrate has occured, and the change doesn't bring the expected results there will be a significant drop in staff motivation (which, to reiterate, is the main strength of the charismatic leader) and results / performance will suffer. I'm not saying that Klopp doesn't necessarily possess more than charisma, I'm sure he does, but at Dortmund, as soon as things really started going sideways, he wasn't able to turn it around.

While the authoritarian (think military, hard but fair) leadership style that Pochettino prefers is the oldest style we know (in organizational theory) and is proven through the test of time. The main challenge is to satisfy both the motivational and hygienic factors (basically motivation and work satisfaction / feel like you're learning and making progress) and if he can keep those up, it'll give him more respect from the players, more consistency and steadier progress.


This is all based on Jacobsen & Thorsvik (NTNU professors) course in Organizational Leadership which in turn is entirely based on empiric studies, but as any "casework", if you don't have all the facts, spoken to the leaders in question and know exactly how they work it's never accurate. It's just based on what I've gathered from years of watching both Pochettino and Klopp. (I've seen and studied Klopp more as he is my inspiration when it comes to leadership and closest resembles the kind of leader I want to be, I didn't really watch or read much about Poch at Southampton).

I might even have the technical terms wrong, as I didn't study this in english.

Click to expand...

Thanks that's a very interesting read.

Colston said:

While the authoritarian (think military, hard but fair) leadership style that Pochettino prefers is the oldest style we know (in organizational theory) and is proven through the test of time. The main challenge is to satisfy both the motivational and hygienic factors (basically motivation and work satisfaction / feel like you're learning and making progress) and if he can keep those up, it'll give him more respect from the players, more consistency and steadier progress.

Click to expand...

And that you're also having fun and enjoying it. That's the magic ingredient.

Poch's a master at getting the balance right, so you work like a dog to become a beast but have a great time doing it.

steve said:

Can you surmise your post in planer English please? I've read it 3 times and am struggling to understand your point outside of clipperty and charisma being a potential problem. The second paragraph is especially bewildering.

Thanks,

Steve

Click to expand...

@sloth pretending he understood it...

Colston said:

Heh, sorry man. I'll try to simplify it. If only english was my first language....

Charismatic leaders are great for change, they are the most motivational leaders you'll find. A good charismatic leader can force through almost any change, as their main strength and what they rely on is getting the staff on their side and working towards a goal. Empiric studies show that the main weakness of the charismatic leader is that they can struggle with consistency over a longer period. If the major change they were brought in to orchestrate has occured, and the change doesn't bring the expected results there will be a significant drop in staff motivation (which, to reiterate, is the main strength of the charismatic leader) and results / performance will suffer. I'm not saying that Klopp doesn't necessarily possess more than charisma, I'm sure he does, but at Dortmund, as soon as things really started going sideways, he wasn't able to turn it around.

While the authoritarian (think military, hard but fair) leadership style that Pochettino prefers is the oldest style we know (in organizational theory) and is proven through the test of time. The main challenge is to satisfy both the motivational and hygienic factors (basically motivation and work satisfaction / feel like you're learning and making progress) and if he can keep those up, it'll give him more respect from the players, more consistency and steadier progress.


This is all based on Jacobsen & Thorsvik (NTNU professors) course in Organizational Leadership which in turn is entirely based on empiric studies, but as any "casework", if you don't have all the facts, spoken to the leaders in question and know exactly how they work it's never accurate. It's just based on what I've gathered from years of watching both Pochettino and Klopp. (I've seen and studied Klopp more as he is my inspiration when it comes to leadership and closest resembles the kind of leader I want to be, I didn't really watch or read much about Poch at Southampton).

I might even have the technical terms wrong, as I didn't study this in english.

Click to expand...

That was a really good read, thanks. Like Steve, I struggled the first time round.

To be fair to Klopp his last season side had been decimated, not just by losing players to Bayern's poaching etc, but ravaged by key injuries too (Reus, Bender, Blaszczykowski, etc etc) and I watched several of their games in that first half the season and they were dominating games but just not getting breaks, lacking key personnel that could make superiority count and suffering from a litany of personal errors (their keeper particularly).

And considering at the halfway stage they'd barely won a game, to then finish in the Europa qualification and top their CL group (with Arsenal in it) I think proved that this wasn't a case of his charisma waning, it was just an accumulation of very circumstances.

sloth said:

For me Klopp is the proven master, whereas Poch is still the apprentice, the fact of which demonstrates the difference in stature of our two clubs. Both are training ground coaches though, they're not in the Terry Venables, Harry Redknapp, Mourinho mould of coach who use their charisma to weld good players into a cohesive unit.

For me the heart of a Poch team and a Klopp team needs to steeped in their methods, and then around that core there can be a certain amount of coming and going; as long as they players who come are identified as have similar mental strength and work ethic to those they've replaced. In this way the training ground gets that spirit of competitiveness and hard work which can then be translated to the pitch.

Which is all a long way round of saying that Klopp's impact in his first season will be related to the spirit of the Liverpool training ground under Rogers and the underlying characters of his players. If they're fighters and workers by nature and their fitness is good then he has a chance of making a quick impact, but if it's not there already, if there are a few who by nature will work in the first couple of weeks but then go back to coasting soon after, then it will be a longer road for Klopp.

Click to expand...

Putting Mourinho into the same coaching genre as Harry Redknapp is possibly as wrong as an alien called ET-Wrong, arriving on a spaceship called Starship-Wrong from the planet Wrong-Gama-5.

But I concur with some of the rest. I quipped in the Liverpool thread in general football when he was appointed that Klopp is coach Pochettino wants to be but with better English and more teeth.

I thought it very apt that these two met in Klopp's first game and I don't think I've enjoyed a 0-0 as much for a long time.

sloth said:

Just read and liked your post above. As you acknowledge leaders can be more than one kind at the same time. So I agree with you that Klopp is charismatic, but I think he's also a training ground coach. And I found what you said intriguing about what can happen with charismatics when they're followed and yet the desired change doesn't occur.

I also think that, just as with a gambling game, there's the skill inn playing your cards and then the luck of what you draw. Thus a highly skilled poker player can lose to a novice in any given session simply due to getting dealt a higher than usual number of bad hands relative to the other guy's luck in getting good hands at the right time. To spot the skill you have to look at the methods employed and the results over a long period of time. So Klopp's poor final year at BD could be due to what you say and/or misfortune, but his ability over all can be seen over the longer term.

Click to expand...

Yep. There is no way, without having been there and gone through the process or possess a ton of accurate data, we can judge whether or not it was failing leadership, business strategy, or just plain old bad luck.

All I wanted to, when I made the original incomprehensible post, was to try to illustrate that even though they may possess many similarities and basically identical footballing philosphies, there are clear theoretical differences in their respective chosen style of leadership, which in turn directly influences the organizational culture, motivation and hygiene factors, the way they set their goals with their respective KPIs (Key performance indicators, what we use to measure progress or success) and the distribution of power within the staff they are directly responsible for.

Note: This doesn't mean that they can't do almost exactly the same in everything, it's just that their inner motivation and reasoning for doing so might be entirely different even if, to the fans and players, it would seem like they do work exactly the same way with the same methods.

Bus-Conductor said:

Putting Mourinho into the same coaching genre as Harry Redknapp is possibly as wrong as an alien called ET-Wrong, arriving on a spaceship called Starship-Wrong from the planet Wrong-Gama-5.

But I concur with some of the rest. I quipped in the Liverpool thread in general football when he was appointed that Klopp is coach Pochettino wants to be but with better English and more teeth.

I thought it very apt that these two met in Klopp's first game and I don't think I've enjoyed a 0-0 as much for a long time.

Click to expand...

You could make a comparison, for example, between a grey moth, an African elephant, and an emu, and it be a correct comparison. And I guess some wag could come back at you with scorn in his voice pointing out that, "You idiot, they're three completely different animals!", to which, I guess that idiot might only have a shrug of his shoulders.

sloth said:

You could make a comparison, for example, between a grey moth, an African elephant, and an emu, and it be a correct comparison. And I guess some wag could come back at you with scorn in his voice pointing out that, "You idiot, they're three completely different animals!", to which, I guess that idiot might only have a shrug of his shoulders.

Click to expand...

Is it that grey moth, African elephant and emu are all more tactically astute than Redknapp ?

Bus-Conductor said:

Is it that grey moth, African elephant and emu are all more tactically astute than Redknapp ?

Click to expand...

New coaches often come in as change agents. Invariably the clock is ticking almost immediately. Lewin (not the Gooners kitman) says that staff need to be informed of how long the change period is likely to last before becoming stable once more. Too long a period and the change agent may lose the initial support he has. The Redknapps and fat Sam's of the world are brought in to provide, for the went of a better word 'charisma' or enter, what might be termed a charismatic situation where in this case a club is after leadership because of a void. The short termism evident in English football, usually also means that most new coaches also bring in their own ready made team of convinced people....they don't usually have the luxury of time to convince the existing staff. Times have certainly changed, Liverpool and Man United once had succession plans depending on staff already at the club. While this provided almost dynasties of stability, even they have struggled to cope with change. While most club chairmen dream of hiring a coach who will develop a likeable entertaining way of playing for the club, few are given the scope to do so. Mark Hughes seems to be altering Stoke for the good....they could hardly have been more dislikeable we all say. Here at Tottenham Poch seems to be developing a pattern of playing with a squad of his liking. Unfortunately our historical fragility means that 3 Newcastle results and we all cease to believe. The next big change situation will be at Arsenal. Eventually they will decide it is 'Wenger Out Week' for more than a week and they will be faced with a similar situation to United with Ferguson. Arsenal being unstable appeals to us all and who knows they may revert to Grahamism of the worst kind. We can only hope!