Thoughts on Ian Foster

[Cobi Budge]

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.

Interesting post.

There definitely is a bit of a disconnect between Foster and the fanbase.

You’re right that the previous 4 managers all had “meet the manager” evenings early on in their tenures, I remember going to one with Sheridan shortly after he was appointed, Adams shortly after he was appointed and Lowe shortly after he was appointed.

Apart from club staff, I don’t actually know anyone who has met Ian Foster, whereas just about everyone in Plymouth had a story to tell about the time they met Schumacher/Lowe/Adams. I’m not sure that Foster banning the pre match autographs/selfies has helped with that, as that was always an opportunity for the manager and the players to connect with the fans.

Managers are also often very different when they aren’t being filmed/recorded, John Sheridan had a brilliant sense of humour but his interviews were dour, Adams was a lovely bloke but his interviews made him seem a bit deranged. We haven’t really had an opportunity to see the other side of Foster.

 

[SWTT]

Likewise, has Foster had the opportunity to really understand our club, the city and the region? As Graham says, Schuey had a real affinity to the area and seemed to get what it was to be a Janner (whether that was BS or otherwise is a different debate).

As much as we don't know Foster, does he know us.

Foster continually playing our club down at the expense of the opposition in his interviews feels like a disconnect from the club's recent attitude to be ambitious by working smarter than everyone else and turning the previous negatives about location, etc into positives for squad unity.

Without Foster getting any real understanding of what the fans expect, he seems to keep making assumptions that rub people up the wrong way in his interviews.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

I think after the West Brom game I was worried about our tactics but if you take the games in isolation I’d say that against Preston and Norwich it’s players that haven’t quite done the job. Before anyone says he is “demotivating” them we have seen Hardie go through spells of missing chances before and he will again. Sadly due to poor recruitment we can’t rotate like last year when he was dropped to the bench when in this form. People will see what they want to though and a lot on here have decided they are judge, jury and executioner and will let us know about it until it’s rammed down our throats (maybe a post limit per hour 😂)

I think with the fixtures we have left we probably will end up safe but I think that also relies on a couple of teams down there also not being very good. Keep the faith and let’s try and support during the 90mins.

Much as I see it. Get 7 points and hope several others don't get 10.

 

[Frank Butcher]

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.

This kind of post makes me laugh. I mean, I could have said ‘I know’ several times, but I don’t. It’s supposition based on what I see and feel. Which is the nature of a message board post most of the time - and I suggest most of your posts too.

 

[Biggs]

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.

But this is EXACTLY why continuity was so important for us, we had to get someone very similar to SS… obviously ideally an upgrade if possible. The club statements echoed the importance of continuity also.

We can’t be having months of adjustment every time there’s a managerial change, he had to come in and take on the baton from SS as seamlessly as possible. It’s very clear that didn’t happen, with the change in approach, formation, recruitment strategy, and depleted coaching staff for weeks.

Long term patience is important once you’ve got the right person, but correcting a mistake if you haven’t and the club strategy is going off track is just as crucial.

 

[Frank Butcher]

What would be your answer to too much change, after Foster came in?

Not sure I understand your question. But if I interpret it correctly, I wouldn’t have invested in so much youth at that juncture, I wouldn’t have shifted the playing style without a pause for consideration and then introduced it gradually. I wouldn’t have discarded some players quite so easily - team picks and one transfer in particular. Not so much in terms of change, but I wouldn’t have used language that seemed to dismiss past achievements - I absolutely would have tried to charm the fan base … blah blah…

 

[jerryatricjanner]

Warnock to assist to the end of the season.

Warnock doesn't assist anybody. He has to be the main man.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

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.

If you mean the change from manager to Head Coach was subtle then I don't think it was because when Foster was appointed many fans remarked how he was named as Head Coach and not manager.

But as mentioned the hierarchy at Home Park haven't really helped Foster, at least in public.
The late appointment of a coach and then a consultant might have been forced onto Foster to help him or it might have been Foster's choice.

The two week international break would have been an ideal time for Foster to do another interview for Argyle TV and a chance for him to open up to the fans.
Since he's been appointed Foster has been the only spokesman for the club and left to get on with it, which given his lack of media experience is not fair on Foster.

 

[Deacster]

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.

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?

Agree with that. We know our budget and where we are in the food chain and managing Argyle in the Championship is not an easy gig.
However we do need someone who makes our team worth more than the sum of their parts as you say. I think the reverse is true as it stands.

 

[Deacster]

If you mean the change from manager to Head Coach was subtle then I don't think it was because when Foster was appointed many fans remarked how he was named as Head Coach and not manager.

But as mentioned the hierarchy at Home Park haven't really helped Foster, at least in public.
The late appointment of a coach and then a consultant might have been forced onto Foster to help him or it might have been Foster's choice.

The two week international break would have been an ideal time for Foster to do another interview for Argyle TV and a chance for him to open up to the fans.
Since he's been appointed Foster has been the only spokesman for the club and left to get on with it, which given his lack of media experience is not fair on Foster.

Agree with all the above on both posts. I do feel for Foster, he's in a job that doesn't appear to suit him and unfortunately in the football world any failings are very public.

 

[Brechin Hedge]

another game another loss. another dilluded post match interview.

get rid now whilst there is still a chance to stay up. The silence from Home Park remains deafening.

we need someone in now to motivate the players for the key games against rotherham and qpr.

 

[Guiri Green]

If you mean the change from manager to Head Coach was subtle then I don't think it was because when Foster was appointed many fans remarked how he was named as Head Coach and not manager.

But as mentioned the hierarchy at Home Park haven't really helped Foster, at least in public.
The late appointment of a coach and then a consultant might have been forced onto Foster to help him or it might have been Foster's choice.

The two week international break would have been an ideal time for Foster to do another interview for Argyle TV and a chance for him to open up to the fans.
Since he's been appointed Foster has been the only spokesman for the club and left to get on with it, which given his lack of media experience is not fair on Foster.

It is perhaps a bit unfair on Foster to be the only face of the club since his appointment (assuming it wasn't his choice).

His football aside, he does seem to have been left to face the press and public alone. He's getting the flak for just about everything without any of us really having an idea of his true personality.

I'm not in the Chairman or Owner bashing camps but I do hope we haven't got an upper end of the hierarchy that only likes to appear above the ramparts when it's going well.

Just from the non footballing side, whatever our opinions of his style, it does all seem a little odd. Especially given the vacuum of the international break period that's just passed.

 

[Railway sleeper]

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.

An interesting perspective, and seems a very well constructed argument

But doesnt address the issue of competency. What would be the position if you appointed a person, a good person, in all good faith and expectation, who turned out to lack the 'skill set' in order to be able to perform the role ? Not the persons fault - when they end up being promoted beyond the level of their competancy.Perhaps not even the boards fault ( although note I have used the word 'perhaps' here, as i am doubtful on this point).

Do you then take no action in the hope that things will somehow change ? What of the consequential damage to the organisation during this period and until such time as you decide that a termination is in both the person's and the organization's interest ?

 

[Balham Green]

another game another loss. another dilluded post match interview.

get rid now whilst there is still a chance to stay up. The silence from Home Park remains deafening.

we need someone in now to motivate the players for the key games against rotherham and qpr.

One of the few for whom the penny STILL hasn't dropped! He's not going. Give up on the idea.

 

[Balham Green]

An interesting perspective, and seems a very well constructed argument

But doesnt address the issue of competency. What would be the position if you appointed a person, a good person, in all good faith and expectation, who turned out to lack the 'skill set' in order to be able to perform the role ? Not the persons fault - when they end up being promoted beyond the level of their competancy.Perhaps not even the boards fault ( although note I have used the word 'perhaps' here, as i am doubtful on this point).

Do you then take no action in the hope that things will somehow change ? What of the consequential damage to the organisation during this period and until such time as you decide that a termination is in both the person's and the organization's interest ?

And when do you decide someone doesn't have the 'skill set'? When they've been in the job only 3 months and inherited a squad and a budget that would always struggle at this level?