The 3 ATB is a separate argument. There I am totally with you once we go 2-1 down.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Thoughts on Ian Foster
- Thread starter Lancastergreen
- Start date
Argyleloyal
Pasoti Announcer.
Cream First
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
- Apr 25, 2016
- 7,521
- 4,547
I was saying on the thread about managers when Schumacher went, that if the club was definitely keen on staying in the championship that we need a experienced manager because of not it will cost us millions come next season and a lot of people was shooting me down saying look at Ipswich and Leicester. Now look at us, we’re sprinting towards League 1.
I’m sure the board is thinking that they have made a mistake
I do think the Board felt we were reasonably safe in January so not such a risk to hire an inexperienced manager. And also the reason why we didn't spend money.
Np , my view of leadership and the expectations of someone in leading the first team would be that they inspire, motivate the team and make them collectively better than the sum of their parts. Generally leaders are people you want to follow and help individuals reach and exceed their potential. In my view, and admittedly it’s from 12,000 miles away, I just do not see Foster displaying these traits.Always like your posts but what makes you see a lack of leadership? He rightly went off on one today with that clown with the whistle, pulled back one of the coaches from getting more involved, every break in play players are coming over for feedback. I am on the bench with Foster, at the end of the day results count, but not seeing this lost dressing room, leaderless rhetoric going round, not aimed at you. It was a funny game today 2nd half expected to get battered but up until the corner thought we controlled it and had more threat. Type cast for Argo it's the hope that kills us
A very simple contrast was yesterday when Houghton spoke so well post game vs Foster who was still talking about penalty decisions 3 weeks ago. I don’t want to pile on Foster, more that perhaps his natural personality is maybe not suited to the manager/ head coach role of a club and perhaps is better behind the scenes.
I think managing Argyle and a group of players who spend a lot of time together away from families and friends, it strikes me the leadership element of the job is even more important for us. Although SS is persona non grata now, I think we can all acknowledge that he led the squad (not just team) and the club well. I just wonder if Simon, Andrew and Neil maybe underestimated this quality as a key attribute/ non negotiable in the recruitment process?
Simple say that Foster will be evaluated at the end of the season, but before then he’s going nowhere. That’ll tell Foster, fans and players exactly where we stand and we don’t have to speculate. Instead every day provides a new set of rumours.
Blimey you've worshipped many dogs over the years without an ounce of Bundu's talent.
Thanks, I really do enjoy reading your posts.
I’m not sure about that BG, would be quite naive.
We don’t know if we refused to spend, or the head coach decided our targets weren’t for him. Instead we ended up going cheap with young loanees and a cast off who I suspect weren’t ever on our radar. That, to some extent panicked approach, left square pegs in round holes.
I suspect Foster was given the power to decide (a condition of hire perhaps?) - which if true was a mistake IMO. Our supposed candidates likely vetoed and ending up with youth connections that Foster felt comfortable with. All well and good but they have to fit in the squad, which being charitable hasn’t really happened - as well as discarding regulars causing upset.
Too much change too soon (as I have said ad nauseum) and a recipe for what we have seen.
So what was the prior connection between Foster and Forshaw, if the latter is the 'cast off' you refer to? Not just you but generally, I have never seen 'I suspect', 'likely vetoed', 'perhaps', 'if true' and the rest of the supposition gather so much momentum. The accusation that because of him "we ended up going cheap" seems to assume there was money to spend on mature, quality and tested players. I've not had that impression.
Some considerations:
In the high-stakes world of football management, patience is often in short supply. Clubs facing a string of poor results or failing to meet expectations frequently resort to the drastic measure of sacking their manager. However, the decision to dismiss a manager after less than four months in charge can be shortsighted and detrimental to the long-term success of a team. Here are several compelling reasons why such impulsive actions should be avoided:
1. Lack of Time to Implement a Vision: Football managers need time to implement their tactics, strategies, and vision for the team. It takes months for players to adapt to new playing styles, formations, and training methods. Sacking a manager prematurely deprives them of the opportunity to fully establish their approach and make the necessary adjustments to achieve success.
2. Disruption to Stability and Continuity: Constant managerial changes disrupt the stability and continuity of a football club. Players may struggle to adapt to new managerial styles, leading to confusion and inconsistency on the field. A revolving door of managers also undermines the development of long-term team cohesion and chemistry.
3. Financial Implications: Sacking a manager entails financial costs, including paying out their contract and potentially hiring a replacement. These expenses can be significant, particularly for smaller clubs operating on tighter budgets. Instead of investing resources in constant managerial changes, clubs could allocate them towards player recruitment, facilities, or youth development.
4. Unrealistic Expectations: Expecting immediate success from a new manager is often unrealistic. Building a winning team requires time, patience, and gradual improvement. While instant results may be desired, they are not always attainable, especially in competitive football leagues where every team is vying for success.
5. Potential for Long-Term Harm: Frequent managerial changes can have long-term repercussions for a football club. It can damage the club's reputation, deter potential managerial candidates, and erode fan loyalty and trust. Moreover, it may create a culture of instability and insecurity among players, staff, and supporters.
6. Respect for the Managerial Profession: Sacking a manager after a brief tenure undermines the respect and dignity of the managerial profession. It sends a message that managers are disposable commodities rather than professionals deserving of trust, support, and respect. Building a culture of mutual respect between clubs and managers is essential for fostering sustainable success.
In conclusion, sacking a football manager after less than four months is a knee-jerk reaction that often fails to address underlying issues and can harm a club's long-term prospects. While it's understandable that clubs seek immediate results, patience, and faith in a manager's abilities are essential for building a successful team. By providing managers with the time, support, and resources they need to implement their vision, clubs can lay the foundation for sustained success on and off the pitch.
In the high-stakes world of football management, patience is often in short supply. Clubs facing a string of poor results or failing to meet expectations frequently resort to the drastic measure of sacking their manager. However, the decision to dismiss a manager after less than four months in charge can be shortsighted and detrimental to the long-term success of a team. Here are several compelling reasons why such impulsive actions should be avoided:
1. Lack of Time to Implement a Vision: Football managers need time to implement their tactics, strategies, and vision for the team. It takes months for players to adapt to new playing styles, formations, and training methods. Sacking a manager prematurely deprives them of the opportunity to fully establish their approach and make the necessary adjustments to achieve success.
2. Disruption to Stability and Continuity: Constant managerial changes disrupt the stability and continuity of a football club. Players may struggle to adapt to new managerial styles, leading to confusion and inconsistency on the field. A revolving door of managers also undermines the development of long-term team cohesion and chemistry.
3. Financial Implications: Sacking a manager entails financial costs, including paying out their contract and potentially hiring a replacement. These expenses can be significant, particularly for smaller clubs operating on tighter budgets. Instead of investing resources in constant managerial changes, clubs could allocate them towards player recruitment, facilities, or youth development.
4. Unrealistic Expectations: Expecting immediate success from a new manager is often unrealistic. Building a winning team requires time, patience, and gradual improvement. While instant results may be desired, they are not always attainable, especially in competitive football leagues where every team is vying for success.
5. Potential for Long-Term Harm: Frequent managerial changes can have long-term repercussions for a football club. It can damage the club's reputation, deter potential managerial candidates, and erode fan loyalty and trust. Moreover, it may create a culture of instability and insecurity among players, staff, and supporters.
6. Respect for the Managerial Profession: Sacking a manager after a brief tenure undermines the respect and dignity of the managerial profession. It sends a message that managers are disposable commodities rather than professionals deserving of trust, support, and respect. Building a culture of mutual respect between clubs and managers is essential for fostering sustainable success.
In conclusion, sacking a football manager after less than four months is a knee-jerk reaction that often fails to address underlying issues and can harm a club's long-term prospects. While it's understandable that clubs seek immediate results, patience, and faith in a manager's abilities are essential for building a successful team. By providing managers with the time, support, and resources they need to implement their vision, clubs can lay the foundation for sustained success on and off the pitch.
I am not sure many have noticed the subtle change in job title. When Schuey was appointed Neil Dewsnip said his appointment was a move from a coach to a manager. Schuey was very much a manager as much as a coach as his managerial responsibilities often took him away from being 'on the grass' which is why Peter Cavagnah was appointed to bolster the coaching side. I think he excelled as a man manager - I remember him often saying how important the well being of his players was to him. Often his first question would be 'How are you?' I think it helped in creating a sense of unity from top to bottom in the club. He also benefitted from the infamous podcast and 'Meet the Manager' opportunities, culminating in the St Blazey love in where he firmly cemented his 'one of us' credentials that extended to his love for the city. It made his departure all the more a 'kick in the guts' at the most inconvenient of times.
Ian Foster's appointment was as Head Coach. Much was made at the time, understandably, of his coaching credentials and his "passion for developing young footballers, as well as playing expansive, attacking football which fits perfectly with how we want the club to progress." The former is undeniable given his success at England youth and the latter can only be dependent on his tournament successes in the England set up. The Board must have been convinced that this could be translated to a competitive Championship league and a group of players trying to establish their Championship credentials.
The missing element in all of this is the total absence by the club of promoting Ian Foster to the fanbase. We have had no 'Meet the Head Coach' opportunities. All we have had is a rather rushed interview in a darkened room upon appointment and then the pre and post-match interviews and press coferences. Invariably those interviews are under pressure leaving fans to hang on every word said or not said. We have never got to know him as a person or what his football philosophy is. I am sure I am not alone in feeling a bit distant from him which for a club that prides itself on its communication with the fanbase seems a bit of an own goal.
All his returns me to the original point - does the Head Coach role mean a lesser involvement in day-to-day man management. I simply don't know. Ian Foster is front and centre of everything at the moment and it is taking its toll. The intensity and dare I say the toxicity of some of it is not something some would say he has handled particularly well as a result. Given the impact on him and his family that is understandable. It just makes the lack of public support for him from others in the club a bit head scratching when the time for unity top to bottom is now and that includes thefan base. I want Ian Foster to succeed and secure our Championship survival but clearly he needs help to achieve it.
Ian Foster's appointment was as Head Coach. Much was made at the time, understandably, of his coaching credentials and his "passion for developing young footballers, as well as playing expansive, attacking football which fits perfectly with how we want the club to progress." The former is undeniable given his success at England youth and the latter can only be dependent on his tournament successes in the England set up. The Board must have been convinced that this could be translated to a competitive Championship league and a group of players trying to establish their Championship credentials.
The missing element in all of this is the total absence by the club of promoting Ian Foster to the fanbase. We have had no 'Meet the Head Coach' opportunities. All we have had is a rather rushed interview in a darkened room upon appointment and then the pre and post-match interviews and press coferences. Invariably those interviews are under pressure leaving fans to hang on every word said or not said. We have never got to know him as a person or what his football philosophy is. I am sure I am not alone in feeling a bit distant from him which for a club that prides itself on its communication with the fanbase seems a bit of an own goal.
All his returns me to the original point - does the Head Coach role mean a lesser involvement in day-to-day man management. I simply don't know. Ian Foster is front and centre of everything at the moment and it is taking its toll. The intensity and dare I say the toxicity of some of it is not something some would say he has handled particularly well as a result. Given the impact on him and his family that is understandable. It just makes the lack of public support for him from others in the club a bit head scratching when the time for unity top to bottom is now and that includes thefan base. I want Ian Foster to succeed and secure our Championship survival but clearly he needs help to achieve it.
