Head Coach vs Manager

Samid

He's no Bilal Ilyas Jhandir
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
51,779
Location
Oslo, Norway


What are all the differences?

How will this affect the club hierarchy? The head coach won't meddle with any off-field business?

How will this affect the fanbase? Will we get more/less attached to a head coach? Have we lost our lightning rod, as in not having a manager to blame when things go south? How will we differentiate between poor recruitment and poor coaching?
 
Who's going to be the manager now?
 
Don't think it will affect the fanbase at all, although it probably should.

I think it's a good thing. A structure like the one we'll have offers a clear division of labour with less of a workload for key members of staff trying to cover multiple roles. Less being done by committee should speed up decision-making too.
 
My issue isn't this, its that ghoul Joel Glazer still having a say whenever he can be bothered to dial in from Tampa.
 
Finally following the modern structure of football clubs. Hopefully we see some proper analytical recruiting and the end of signing players for extortionate fees with profiles like Casemiro
 
I absolutely love it. Finally, finally we stopped living in the past where manager calls all shots.
In this way we will not need to "rebuild" after every manager.
 
In the day to day running of the club from a football perspective, probably nothing, but behind the scenes will be a lot less hands on when it comes to transfers etc. He's likely to say I want such and such a player and instead of hunting them down himself, will leave it to the directors to do.

Its a bit like building a gaming PC. In the past, a Manager like Fergie would have sourced the parts, built the PC, installed all the software, updated the drivers and then finally had a go of Black Ops.
Nowadays, a PC builder does all that, the Head Coach lets them do it and then just plays Black Ops when its delivered (or left on the doorstep)
 
Pretty much his main responsibilities are everything that is directly related to on-field stuff.
Managers usually have more responsibilities like off-field decisions. Inputs in the team direction, contracts, decisions on transfers, etc.
 
Head coach: I want an LB

Club: You already have 2 of them.

Head coach: But they are never available. Buy me an LB.

Club: You are head coach. You need to work with what has been given. We took out your player recruitment rights.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Head coach: I want an LB

Club: You already have 2 of them.

Head coach: But they are never available. Buy me an LB.

Club: You are head coach. You need to work with what has been given. We took out your player recruitment rights.
Click to expand...
Head coach : I want a LB

Club : Why? You only play with wingbacks
 
Sunny Jim said:
I would hate to be a coach without a veto on transfer. Simply a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

He will still have a say in transfer in and outs that much is obvious. But to have a binding veto is simply stupid considering the rate managers change these days
This is a very good and long overdue approach.
 
I don't buy into no veto when it comes to transfers BS. A coach or a manager doesn't make a difference, you still need the football people to work together. It's all about collaboration. You can't force a player on a coach, you'd be wasting your money.

For example, a coach asks for a striker, preferably Kane, we can then tell him we believe he's too old for the cost, here are other options that'd serve the club better long term. But we can't tell him this is who you're getting deal with it.
 
izak said:
I asked an honest question because I don't know the difference.

Are we still going to hire a manager
Click to expand...
No we won't. We no longer operate with that archaic model. What used to be a manager in the olden days , now will be three positions- Ashworth , Wilcox, and Amorim
 
People focus on transfers in but what about transfers out. What if there’s a nob or someone not giving hundred percent, if he was expensive young star, would the higher ups side with him or the head coach if the head coach wants him out
 
The Firestarter said:
No we won't. We no longer operate with that archaic model. What used to be a manager in the olden days , now will be three positions- Ashworth , Wilcox, and Amorim
Click to expand...

My main question, which I alluded to in the other thread, is which of those 3 fronts up the media next time we get a Greenwood/Sancho/Ronaldo type situation?
 
Flying high said:
My main question, which I alluded to in the other thread, is which of those 3 fronts up the media next time we get a Greenwood/Sancho/Ronaldo type situation?
Click to expand...
Amorim, he is responsible for the coaching /dealing day to day with players. The others are backroom staff which mostly work on recruitment.
 
He must effectively have a recruitment veto on basis that signing a player that the head coach isn't going to play would be a ridiculous business decision.

Signing players is different.
 
Head coach is basically just taking away all the power with transfers etc. now an head coach can just focus on the team and coaching them a way of playing, tactics etc.
 
Malons said:
He must effectively have a recruitment veto on basis that signing a player that the head coach isn't going to play would be a ridiculous business decision.

Signing players is different.
Click to expand...
Yeah Ben Jacobs makes a living on making inferences from subtle details and then reporting them as facts as if he’s got inside knowledge.

The club (can’t remember who it was) have already explained how recruitment works between Ashworth, Wilcox, formerly ten Hag and the scouting network and the jist of it was “identify what player the manager needs and find the best options”. The best options are the parameters the manager describes with the profile the club decides. That’s going to be no different for Amorim, he will be in the conversation and whether it’s formal or not, if he says he doesn’t want a particular player the club are not going to burden him with that player. That’s just common sense.
 
I mean this was so obviously on the cards for ages. All it really does is bring us in line with other top clubs, and was a natural evolution considering the executive reorganisation over the last six months.

If anything, I think it’ll help the “manager” be more successful. It enables us to enact a consistent vision over the longer term, and it devolves the coach of the weight of responsibilities for signings. Instead allowing us to sign players for the long term. Managers, by necessity, do not have the job security to take a long term view of player development in the way that is best for the club. They have to balance it much more aggressively in favour of short term results, because their employment relies upon them.

I’ve been championing this change for a long time. And I am delighted the change has finally been made official. Ten Hag was always going to be the last in a long line of managers, all of whom were destined to fail in the wake of Ferguson. Now we have a grown up structure in place and a head coach, we can get on with being a proper football club again.
 
izak said:
I asked an honest question because I don't know the difference.
Click to expand...
Head coach is a trainer. Takes on-field decisions. Trains, picks players and stuff.
Manager takes both on and off-field decisions like has a bigger say in transfers for example.

When football started creating positions like Director of Football, the managers became less and less involved in off-field decisions and thus effectively becoming a head coach.

All this discussion about taking veto power out is a bit of hyperbole. The DoF is not expected to recruit someone who the head coach absolutely does not want in the team. They are expected to partner each other and not have huge differences about recruitment.
 
For one thing, they can't play that video of Fergie saying in 2013 to supporters that their job now is to support the new manager.
 
DJ_21 said:
Head coach is basically just taking away all the power with transfers etc. now an head coach can just focus on the team and coaching them a way of playing, tactics etc.
Click to expand...

I think it also involves taking powers such as squad management and deciding who to provide contracts to or not. In addition, I think there is even less involvement with youth teams.
 
I don't mind the old way at all but then I'm old fashioned.

One thing I don't really get is that a lot of people were saying the new structure would result in a continuity of sorts. The old way admittedly can leave you with players that don't necessarily fit in with the new manager's plan. You can end up with lot of deadwood or players the new boss doesn't rate or can't find a way to fit in. Still, I think the old way of doing things has it's benefits too.

We've appointed Amorim and there's immediately threads asking how our players will fit his system. The 3-4-3 thing is certainly new and there's question marks over who it will suit, who it won't and the forum is full of threads speculating on that, what his appointment might mean for certain players.

Those threads very existence seem to fly in the face of what was supposed to be the strengths of all the recent appointments upstairs.

Now I'm not arsed about changes from one manager to the next, but the talk of continuity has all but disappeared. I don't get it.

Is it:

A) There actually isn't that much difference between how ETH wants to play and Amorim is likely to? The threads pointing out quite big differences are all wrong?

B) The continuity only starts from now, binned off ETH who was rubbish anyway and Amorim's style is the base that all future appointments will be made off?

C) The endless number of people that were talking about continuity of tactical approach / personnel all the time for the last few months don't actually value it too much?

D) Something else?

E)boue
 
Last edited:
There have always been managers who didnt have a ruling on transfers. The best ones always have the last word though. Fergie wasnt alone, but he called the shots. Pep isnt given players without giving a green light, same with Klopp. A Coach or Manager or whatever you call it should always be a part of transfer rulings. Unless you coach a club like Brighton
 
Andersonson said:
There have always been managers who didnt have a ruling on transfers. The best ones always have the last word though. Fergie wasnt alone, but he called the shots. Pep isnt given players without giving a green light, same with Klopp. A Coach or Manager or whatever you call it should always be a part of transfer rulings. Unless you coach a club like Brighton
Click to expand...
This isn’t true with Pep or Klopp. Certainly not when they first joined. Klopp wanted Brandt over Salah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.