Today's rumour: Chris Willock

[craig 5,199]

13 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I don't like that approach. 

 

It means we have to rebuild a team every time a manager leaves, which is not long nowadays.

 

I think we need something more long-term, like Brentford or Salzburg, for example.   

Respectfully disagree.

 

What you contend assumes that a new manager coming in has a different philosophy.  Different managers, with same philosophies, dont necessarily require wholesale personnel changes - McLeish was case in point.

 

Either way, it seems like Willock fits the phiosophy as a Kent replacement.  Whether the manager makes that decision or a Sporting Director is almost irrelevant - though I suspect that this was a Wilson scouting with input from Beale.

 

I dont have an issue with a sporting director - but Wilson became very hit and miss.

 

You also don't need a sporting director to ensure the philosophy remains - though admittedly it helps having one rather than relying on a Board who arent football experts.

[craig 5,199]

14 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I think it's inevitable a manager will bring in players he knows.

 

There has to be a balance though - one or two is fine in agreement with the Sporting Director but much more then it undermines the scouting operation.

Exactly.  Depends really on how you want it to run..... for me the Manager should be telling the Sporting Director (SD) what positions he believes need strengthened, the scouts then report feasible players back to SD, who reviews them, culls them and gives a shortlist to the manager.

 

Not dissimilar to the interview process in a regular business

[craig 5,199]

11 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Of course. 

 

Personally, I'd want it out the hands of the coach almost completely, but I appreciate that's an extreme view. 

He's the one who has to work with them.  Makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[Rousseau 9,487]

17 minutes ago, craig said:

Respectfully disagree.

 

What you contend assumes that a new manager coming in has a different philosophy.  Different managers, with same philosophies, dont necessarily require wholesale personnel changes - McLeish was case in point.

 

Either way, it seems like Willock fits the phiosophy as a Kent replacement.  Whether the manager makes that decision or a Sporting Director is almost irrelevant - though I suspect that this was a Wilson scouting with input from Beale.

 

I dont have an issue with a sporting director - but Wilson became very hit and miss.

 

You also don't need a sporting director to ensure the philosophy remains - though admittedly it helps having one rather than relying on a Board who arent football experts.

Agreed - and picking the manager with a similar philosophy fits into that model, that continuity, that I'd like to see. We've been a little mixed, I'd say.  

 

I does look like Willock will fit. I don't have an issue with him, per se, merely the idea that we're picking him because he's worked with MB before. 

 

I get the feeling Wilson didn't have as much say as a DoF should, IMO. I think the profile of signings were quite different, from SG to GvB to MB. Which fits into my views regarding a DoF's powers.  

[Rousseau 9,487]

15 minutes ago, craig said:

He's the one who has to work with them.  Makes absolutely zero sense to me.

If a coach has to bring in specific players to get anything out of them, he's not a very good coach. 

 

It's just my opinion. I know I'm too progressive for most of you... 

 

[craig 5,199]

4 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

If a coach has to bring in specific players to get anything out of them, he's not a very good coach. 

 

It's just my opinion. I know I'm too progressive for most of you... 

 

It isnt all about their qualities as a coach though - you can make players better regardless if you are a good coach - but if there are personality clashes then it simply won't work.  And thats what I mean by "he is the one working with them".

 

For example, I have it on reasonable authority that your hero, Josh Windass, was a good kid, OK player but thick as mince and in a senior players words "hes a guy who would get a manager the sack, because he doesnt understand instructions".  Some managers will be able to work with that whilst others won't have the patience for it - and it is a results driven, shorter tem than you'd like, business.

 

The Sporting Director can scout and bring in Messi, but if Messi and the coach don't get along then it isnt just bad for them indivudally but it also created unrest amongst the remainder of the dressing room.

[Rousseau 9,487]

25 minutes ago, craig said:

It isnt all about their qualities as a coach though - you can make players better regardless if you are a good coach - but if there are personality clashes then it simply won't work.  And thats what I mean by "he is the one working with them".

 

For example, I have it on reasonable authority that your hero, Josh Windass, was a good kid, OK player but thick as mince and in a senior players words "hes a guy who would get a manager the sack, because he doesnt understand instructions".  Some managers will be able to work with that whilst others won't have the patience for it - and it is a results driven, shorter tem than you'd like, business.

 

The Sporting Director can scout and bring in Messi, but if Messi and the coach don't get along then it isnt just bad for them indivudally but it also created unrest amongst the remainder of the dressing room.

IT'S CHILDLIKE INNOCENCE! IT'S ENDEARING!

 

A coach could scout a player and still not get on with them over the course. 

 

You need a join-up approach, with a certain profile of player, a competent coach - not a manager in disguise - and a DoF in overseeing it all. 

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,330]

39 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I get the feeling Wilson didn't have as much say as a DoF should, IMO. I think the profile of signings were quite different, from SG to GvB to MB. Which fits into my views regarding a DoF's powers.  

I have the feeling GvB was quite useless at signing players.. he brought in James Sands for example and he just didn't fit in anywhere. The proceeded to sign a bunch of guys that we had been scouting under previous management teams. Didn't use his Dutch or Spanish connections at all.

[Rousseau 9,487]

1 minute ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

I have the feeling GvB was quite useless at signing players.. he brought in James Sands for example and he just didn't fit in anywhere. The proceeded to sign a bunch of guys that we had been scouting under previous management teams. Didn't use his Dutch or Spanish connections at all.

I agree, and that sort of proves my point that the DoF didn't have as much control as he should. 

 

I don't think managers should be using their connections - or, at least only as part of the strategy already in place. 

[craig 5,199]

3 hours ago, Rousseau said:

IT'S CHILDLIKE INNOCENCE! IT'S ENDEARING!

 

A coach could scout a player and still not get on with them over the course. 

 

You need a join-up approach, with a certain profile of player, a competent coach - not a manager in disguise - and a DoF in overseeing it all. 

Hence why Beale wants to look them in the eye