Head Coach vs Manager

The head coach is the one with dirty knees and a sore neck
 
This is not the United Nations. He will clearly have a say on transfers. Don’t need to believe everything you read.
 
Who's Kissing Cameras? said:
This isn’t true with Pep or Klopp. Certainly not when they first joined. Klopp wanted Brandt over Salah.
Click to expand...

Klopp was convinced by Edwards, not told or forced. Its what happens when you work together and has a trustworthing relationship. Klopp couldve gotten Brandt if he wanted too. Several podcasts on this
 
Bullshit semantics. EtH was appointed as a head coach. Ole was that as well. Ole has himself said that in terms of targets he could pick from a list of "gettable" players. If he had proper manager power we would have bought different players under his tenure.
 
It's a basically meaningless difference

ETH was classed as a manager, but he didn't get the final say, otherwise MCSauce would still be part of the squad
 
Someone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And that is how it works anyway.
 
Sunny Jim said:
I would hate to be a coach without a veto on transfer. Simply a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
I would hate be a coach who NEEDED a veto on transfers. Because that would mean I worked in a dysfunctional organisation, where my ideas and those of the football dept don't align. Which a veto wouldn't fix.
 
Chipper said:
Chipper said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't see the problem with it personally you don't continue down the path of least success.


I think it's important to differentiate between game model and formation in these instances. We know that Wilcox and Ten Hag had ideas around game model, we also know the youth teams had been following the Ten Hag game model since he took over. I suggest that the game model is not the shape but the objectives of the style of play to dictate to the pitch. Much like the "England DNA" it will be short simple and hold up to very little scrutiny, but it will be better for the players to consume than Ten Hags 100+ rules.

Wilcox, Ashworth and Berarda have identified Amorim to deliver that game model. Amorim prefers a 3-4-3 formation, one which on paper suits many of the new recruits and the squad as a whole, with possible weaknesses being the inside forward/2nd striker and the left wing back. But the left wing back situation was a situation either way, and the inside forward position is just waiting for Rashford, Nacho or Amad to go on a run of goals and gain some confidence.

Two of our major problems have been putting training performance out on match day (from behind the scene reports and from former coaches) and how open our midfield tends to be. Ruben's 3-4-3 is generally not so open and has a feature that should help players be able to read the game better. The in and out of possession formation doesn't become some bizarre hybrid where everyone must know where everyone else is when player A, B, C and D have the ball, the shape generally stays the same. The shape and expectations are simpler and less demanding on a micro management level.


Amorim has his team playing build from the back pragmatic yet attacking football, with a baiting counter attack that the solid back 7 can spray the ball to when it's needed.


B) is probably the closest point, but I would still say that in terms of continuity Amorim is probably closer than you think without likening the on the pitch stuff to the crap we have been served up recently.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Veto. Dan Ashworth will not sign any player the coach/manager doesn't want. It's not part of his way of working. Ultimately any player that is signed is signed to play so it's important that both coach and structure align in it's decision making.
 
Stinkypete said:
Regarding the Veto. Dan Ashworth will not sign any player the coach/manager doesn't want. It's not part of his way of working. Ultimately any player that is signed is signed to play so it's important that both coach and structure align in it's decision making.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Pep, Klopp and Arteta don't/didn't have control of signings either. That seems to have worked.
 
Trophy Room said:
This is not the United Nations. He will clearly have a say on transfers. Don’t need to believe everything you read.
Click to expand...
But that's vague, what do you mean he has his say? He certainly won't be making the decisions.
 
I am a big fan of the head coach role. The manager role SAF's style is too big for anyone these days. There's too many moving parts that its impossible for one person to be exceptional in everything. SAF himself understood it hence why he had the humility to delegate many aspects of his game. Now every role will be clearly defined and its easier for a flaw to be fount and to be dealt with

On top of that the head coach role will reduce player power as decisions on whether players stay or leave will be taken by the higher ups who happen to be less vulnerable to the results on the pitch.
 
Go watch The Overlap with Rafa Benitez. It's a good insight to what the full manager role used to entail. He talks about how he had to learn to budget with the squad, moving around wages for loaned players, sales and buys. Also his involvement in transfers.

A head coach will do none of that.
 
astracrazy said:
Go watch The Overlap with Rafa Benitez. It's a good insight to what the full manager role used to entail. He talks about how he had to learn to budget with the squad, moving around wages for loaned players, sales and buys. Also his involvement in transfers.

A head coach will do none of that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he'll do none of it. He's still a very important component. He's not going to be doing the accounts but he'll need to be aware of the budget. People act as if he'll be taken by surprised at who is coming in the door. His role in signing players will be important too.

I really don't think the change is akin to a castration from involvement in anything beyond picking the team as sometimes it comes across
 
Malons said:
I'm not sure he'll do none of it. He's still a very important component. He's not going to be doing the accounts but he'll need to be aware of the budget. People act as if he'll be taken by surprised at who is coming in the door. His role in signing players will be important too.

I really don't think the change is akin to a castration from involvement in anything beyond picking the team as sometimes it comes across
Click to expand...
Its not and anyone that's been following developments with Ashworth etc will know that's not how he wants things to be ran either. But it looks better for the club to announce removal of that bad word the Veto.
 
Godfather said:
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.
Click to expand...
If the coach and recruitment team are in alignment all good.
If the recruitment gang insist a player should be signed and the manager doesn't fancy him, that screams inevitable issues down the line.
 
Sandikan said:
If the coach and recruitment team are in alignment all good.
If the recruitment gang insist a player should be signed and the manager doesn't fancy him, that screams inevitable issues down the line.
Click to expand...

I'm sure (or I hope) they will be in close contact for transfers going forward just with him not having the final say. I think this makes sense.
 
Samid said:


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?
Click to expand...

Wilf McGuinness was appointed as 1st Team Coach, not Manager, when Sir Matt Busby moved upstairs to become General Manager in 1969. That was generally reckoned to be a disaster, with McGuinness being sacked before the end of the first season.

That said, I welcome this latest development, as it brings us into a modern structure, which has to be an improvement on what has happened before.
 
Good to see Man Utd following the modern structure finally. If the head coach does well in his job, he can be promoted to the manager role in the future.
 
Good, this means we have finally accepted the reality of modern football.

The majority of clubs now operate in a way where their manager isn't really too much involved in singing players, if the recruitment department does a good job, they will of course get the opinion of a head coach about buying a player but he doesn't get the final say in who we buy that needs to be someone who has a bigger picture in mind and not just if the current manager has worked with the lad before.
 
Chipper said:
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
Click to expand...
I presume it will be (b).

In saying that, Amorim presumably playing 343 with us isn't going to lock us into that formation in the future. Most players can easily fit into different formations, particularly through the spine of the team.

It's the playstyle and patterns of play that need to be closer to each other as we change managers. Are we going to play a high line, compress the play and utilise lots of short fast passing while trying to dominate possession? That can be done with multiple different formations, the players will be trained for that and players will be transferred in and out with that in mind. Most of the players who suit that style of play in one formation will be fine in another formation as long as it's focusing on the same aspects. On the other hand, if we decide to have a deeper defensive line and focus on faster transitions from back to front (basically aiming for a much better version of what we're doing now), that will require very different players and different coaching even if the basic formation is the same.

Wide players can be a bit more specialised, so those players could suffer a bit if we change managers. You're never going to get a perfect continuity between managers, but it just needs to be a lot closer than what we've had in the past.
 
Another reason why keeping ETH was a stupid idea. If they wanted to build continuity then why spend another 200 mill on Ten Haag players. They should have said to him we are changing our methods and we want you to stay BUT you loose your veto power. I mean we already saw how good his signings were and they were sht.
 
It’s much better he is joining mid-season rather than in the summer. Gives him time to properly evaluate the squad over an extended period and understand who is tactically suited to the system, if not who has the adaptability to play a different role in this system, and who has the right mentality to be part of this new Manchester Utd.

As much as he is a Head Coach and will no longer have as much decision-making power around transfers, I’d like to think he will be part of the process, still in giving his feedback on individuals, expressing what he feels he needs, and the the team above and around him go and find the best players within our budget.

I don’t think we’ll be invading Sporting for their top players, but if there’s one to go for it’s Diomande at CB for me.
 
It means very little. As much as folk may want to believe it, the manager hasn’t solely dictated transfer policy for a long time. Murtough ran football operations; Ashworth does now. How well they did (or do) is another debate altogether.

This is not to say that Ten Hag (or whoever came before) didn’t have a say. They clearly did. Amorim will, too.
 
The fact we have such a disjointed profile of players who mostly struggle to play as a cohesive unit, because of different managers input is why we were crying out for this. Ineos will pick a certain style of player to suit a certain style of play and bring in the head coach to suit that style as well, if the worst happens and we still struggle medium term, then a new head coach with the same style of play will be bought in. Eventually we will have all the players in and the manager all singing off the same hymn sheet. That’s the plan I think.
The head coach will still have a say specifying he needs a LW for example, and the club will probably find a few examples, then the head coach will put in order who he prefers and the club will try and get first choice, then second if unsuccessful etc. That’s the way I see it anyway.
 
Malons said:
I'm not sure he'll do none of it. He's still a very important component. He's not going to be doing the accounts but he'll need to be aware of the budget. People act as if he'll be taken by surprised at who is coming in the door. His role in signing players will be important too.

I really don't think the change is akin to a castration from involvement in anything beyond picking the team as sometimes it comes across
Click to expand...

Being aware of the budget for transfers and wages is one thing, being the guy who manages it is another. Amorim will be the former. A manager before DOF's was the latter.

Everyone around the recruitment table will be aware of the budget, Dan will be managing it.

Amorim will be involved in the discussions around the recruitment table and be on the same level as everyone else around it, unlike our previous managers. Or recently, the final say would be between EtH and Dan with EtH having a veto.
 
I suspect A head coach will only be involved with coaching up and down the club. Reduced commercial responsibilities. Reduced recruitment responsbilities in terms of looking for players or managing budgets. Reduce club building activity. No involvenent in contrscts. Just concentration on installing a winning game model at all levels of the club and technical development of players.
 
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...
Okay thanks for clearing that up.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, do Real Madrid used this type of structure we are about to go with now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.