ethanedwards
Snowflake incarnate.
- Nov 24, 2006
- 3,379
- 2,502
Spock like in your logic SP.I never pretended to being particularly wise, but thanksCertainly better than negging.
Off the top of my head, without delving too deeply into the subject: some managers/head coaches are hired to immediately turn around a string of devastatingly bad results, usually culminating in the sacking of the incumbent manager/head-coach, from whence the vacancy occurs. Others are hired with longer terms objectives in mind, usually with a view to the medium to long term, even if the short term (while, often, drastic changes are made) may be viewed as expendable - to a certain extent, and only to a certain extent. Frankly, I see little point in comparing the two, especially comparing the short-term results of the two. A primary objective with the former is to restore morale, to get confidence up both for individuals and as a team. With the latter, implementation of longer term strategy and the sorting of the chaff from the straw is more likely to be prioritised.
At Spurs we have seen both types: Mr Redknapp was of the former variety, results and morale were at rock bottom in the last days of Wandery Ramos, and Mr Redknapp came in and turned things round fairly quickly - and is most known for his rapport with players and confidence building, and least for implementation of longer term strategic goals (he, himself, readily admits this - as when he hired GHodd to give him tactical advice at QPR), or in his eschewing of the youth based focus of THFC in favour of hiring old players he could depend on. As far as I am aware, with the latter, his failure to buy into the youth focussed strategic vision at the club, was one of the factors leading to his dismissal. All the same, that he got nearly four years is testament to how well he did, even if his tactical and other failings began to weight heavier towards the end, and I could well understand that the several factors involved probably made it the right time to part company. I suppose Mr Jol and Mr Sherwood, himself, could be included to an extent as well (although I don't think results were the biggest problem with AVB). And we have seen the latter, most typically with Wandery Ramos, AVB and, now, with Pochettino (let's just hope it is third time lucky, eh!).
In any case, I don't see the point in comparing immediate results for the type who is there to immediately turn around a devastating run of results against those of the type who is in situ to implement medium to long term strategy.
Funny how when I made the above post it was on this basis alone, but some folk chose to read it as being in some way anti (or, indeed, pro) their arguments on a totally different subject. Just for the record, I was never vehemently anti-Sherwood, I made a detailed post explaining why I thought his appointment (in place of AVB) made sense (validated by JJ - whether that carries weight with anyone or not), and thought he did a reasonable, if erratic, job - picking up players like Adebayor, good, strange formations, particularly midfield formations (especially for a former midfield enforcer), not so good. Some of the things he said rang true, some of his antics were a tad embarrassing. He did a decent enough job, without being fantastic, and I can see why the club felt maybe he wasn't the one to implement a longer term strategy - but, much like Mr Levy, I would have been more than happy for him to stay at the club in some capacity. I did feel that his insistence on management of bust, especially at our level, is over-reaching a tad - he may have been better going lower-league for a while. But it is his career, good luck to him, and I certainly have no problems with him winning the FA Cup (don't think it proves anything about Pochettino, and not interested in axe-grinding, however).
So, there you have it, seeing a difference in remit between various types of manager/head-coach somehow means I need a lecture in someone else's tendentious version of recent club history when the two are not remotely connected - the former is just a fact independent of whether club X, Y or Z starts World War 3, invents the world's first intimate-area memory card reader, or fly to the Crab Nebula using their webbed toes and solar power. But folk with try to twist what they barely understand for their own axe-grinding purposes - which was, kinda, the point of the post in the first place.
p.s. If the two examples aren't satisfactory as a test group, I would also suggest that sometimes a manager/head coach is hired to keep things running on a n even keel, where the results haven't been dreadful but at the same time medium to long-term improvement, based on strategic vision, is not really expected or demanded either - say, for instance, while a stadium project is being put into effect. Indeed, some malicious tongues would have it that that is Poch's remit in reality, too.
So, different remits - not really comparable - nothing to do with pro/anti Sherwood lobby (excepting where pointless comparisons, due to differential remits, are being forced).
Hope that clarifies - and I'm sure you knew all of this anyway.
