Football is of course not that black and white, but when looking at the best managers from the last 20 or so years I do think that you can break a coaching style into two main camps; fluid vs principled. There will be sub-categories and wildly different styles within each camp, particularly among the principled managers, but I believe that the core idea still stands.
Fluid
A fluid style is hard to pin down. The game plan can change dramatically from one game to the next, which also makes it harder for the opponent to prepare. This is particularly true when playing against a stronger or equal opponent. Another advantage with a fluid style is that it makes you more flexible in the transfer market, as you don't necessarily need very specific players to pull off your game plan.
The downside is that you need players who are both flexible and disciplined. They need to be flexible enough to change roles quickly and disciplined enough to not lose focus or motivation when it's not their favorite role.
The most famous examples of great managers with fluid a coaching style are Fergie and Ancelotti.
A "negative" example of a fluid coaching style would be Ole when he managed us.
Principled
A principled style on the other hand, is very easy to pin down and predict in advance. Hence the name "principled"; you stick to your principles through thick and thin. The advantage is that you can "specialise" the team as a whole. Every players knows exactly what is expected of them and they can for the most part be confident in their ability to pull it off, as they have likely been head-hunted and signed based on their specific set of skills. This also allows for a more singular focus. Yes, you might change position, but the core principles still apply.
The downside is that you need to have a very long-term focus where the club target the specific players needed. You also need a very skilled manager. And the manager must also accept the core principles of the club. This makes recruiting both players and managers quite difficult.
The most famous examples of great principled managers are Pep and Mourinho. They have completely different styles and philosophies of course, but that is to be expected in this category.
A "negative" example of this style would be Louis van Gaal when he managed us.
----
Now you might wonder why I skipped Klopp. The reason is because I think he fits somewhere between the two camps. In Dortmund and for the first 2-3 years in Liverpool he was most definitely in the principled camp. That is why he was so popular among neutral fans. He was a rare example of a very principled and gung-ho attacking coach. What I mean by the latter is that not only did he play a high defensive line, but he was also impatient (unlike Pep, who also plays a high line). But I think he gradually become more fluid and smart (for lack of a better word) over the years. That is just my opinion, though. I'm sure that some of the Liverpool fans in here have a better take on the matter.
Personally I prefer fluidity, but I can understand the arguments for the other camp too. In any case, Amorim seems to belong to the principled camp so it's in my interest to see the style thrive. I'm not sure if our club is suited for it right now though..
Fluid
A fluid style is hard to pin down. The game plan can change dramatically from one game to the next, which also makes it harder for the opponent to prepare. This is particularly true when playing against a stronger or equal opponent. Another advantage with a fluid style is that it makes you more flexible in the transfer market, as you don't necessarily need very specific players to pull off your game plan.
The downside is that you need players who are both flexible and disciplined. They need to be flexible enough to change roles quickly and disciplined enough to not lose focus or motivation when it's not their favorite role.
The most famous examples of great managers with fluid a coaching style are Fergie and Ancelotti.
A "negative" example of a fluid coaching style would be Ole when he managed us.
Principled
A principled style on the other hand, is very easy to pin down and predict in advance. Hence the name "principled"; you stick to your principles through thick and thin. The advantage is that you can "specialise" the team as a whole. Every players knows exactly what is expected of them and they can for the most part be confident in their ability to pull it off, as they have likely been head-hunted and signed based on their specific set of skills. This also allows for a more singular focus. Yes, you might change position, but the core principles still apply.
The downside is that you need to have a very long-term focus where the club target the specific players needed. You also need a very skilled manager. And the manager must also accept the core principles of the club. This makes recruiting both players and managers quite difficult.
The most famous examples of great principled managers are Pep and Mourinho. They have completely different styles and philosophies of course, but that is to be expected in this category.
A "negative" example of this style would be Louis van Gaal when he managed us.
----
Now you might wonder why I skipped Klopp. The reason is because I think he fits somewhere between the two camps. In Dortmund and for the first 2-3 years in Liverpool he was most definitely in the principled camp. That is why he was so popular among neutral fans. He was a rare example of a very principled and gung-ho attacking coach. What I mean by the latter is that not only did he play a high defensive line, but he was also impatient (unlike Pep, who also plays a high line). But I think he gradually become more fluid and smart (for lack of a better word) over the years. That is just my opinion, though. I'm sure that some of the Liverpool fans in here have a better take on the matter.
Personally I prefer fluidity, but I can understand the arguments for the other camp too. In any case, Amorim seems to belong to the principled camp so it's in my interest to see the style thrive. I'm not sure if our club is suited for it right now though..
