- Aug 25, 2010
Still very early days though Eddie so its not really fair to draw those conclusions yet is it?Perhaps there was less tactical instruction, but that might have been because they built their tactics around the instincts of the players rather than trying to get the players to adapt in order comply with a managerial blueprint. Harry used to talk about seeing how players fitted together; whereas AVB, for instance, would stick with a plan even when palpably lacking the players to make it work. I had hoped Poch might take more of a middle road, but it seems to me that both Eriksen and Adebayor have gone backwards since he took over; Christian really has not had any good games under Poch (and I am struggling to think of any under AVB come to that - tactical instruction really does not seem to be his thing, at least not at this stage in his development). Nor is there is much sign of anyone else raising their game to compensate. Only Rose has really looked better this season, but then he was hung out to dry by the free role that Sherwood gave Eriksen.
For instance, when we master what Poch wants, or at least some of it, there's every chance that you'll see more consistent performances from Eriksen, for example.
He'll also be able to weed out who definitely doesn't fit over the course of the season.
Point being if we're better off as a team overall under Poch's methods they all benefit from the greater collective good - if that makes sense.
Sherwood and Harry like to keep things simple. Yes that can be a huge benefit in the short to medium term. But if you want a successful long term plan I think a 'blueprint' is absolutely essential. Players come and go, you need an ethos, style and identity so you can go out and bring players in to replace those that go out with as little fuss as possible.