Thanks for the reply woodsy
It's good that were having a debate about this I think- which is what I wanted really....since it's such a big change to the way that football clubs have traditionally been run
I've listed the possible demerits of the system, along with my perceptions ( which may of course be wrong) - I'd be interested to hear what others think though, who might take a different view to me
There are some interesting issues which arise from the structure I think
Contrary views to mine, would be welcome
I note that some clubs who started to use this system ( millwall) have subsequently abandoned it
The system discounts the need for experience- so that we get into the situation in which we found ourselves in this season- 5 consecutive home defeats with a 'head coach' with no experience of management at the helm
That's not to say that this situation wouldn't have arisen if there had been an experienced manager at the helm- but my perception would be that it would be less likely . Why - hindsight and reflection.simply because an experienced manager would have been through that sort of experience before, probably, and would know how to handle it better than a novice coach ? Why ? Because experience is valuable isnt it ? Because if we are sensible we reflect on our performances ( whatever job we each happen to do) the last time we came across a similar situation including what we did right and also what we did wrong the last time- so that next time we come across a similar situation, we handle it better.
I have a few issues with the idea of a young coach. Where is there room for an experienced older head in this system ? And because of that- and this is my concern- I think it will make us weaker as a football club going forward.
I can see the potential benefits to an owner for example, in having a director of football who is hands- on.
Another issue is this - when does a director-of- football become accountable ? I note stoke changed theirs this season.Having said all that I am grateful for all the work that neil dewsnip has done this season.
Would people be happy to see another learner appointed, when there are so many good experienced managers available ?
Would be happy to hear from people who take a contrary view to me, as I think this major change in the way football teams are being structured and run, is a legitimate subject for debate amongst fans.....
I believe we shouldn't be getting hung up on the term 'head coach', i don't remember if SS had that title, but the reality is the next person in charge will have the same roles and responsibilities as SS. That will be to:
- Manage the day to day coaching, performance and on field matters of the first team, reporting into the Director of Football (DOF).
- They will have the Fitness, Performance, Physio, Match Day / Opposition Analytics team reporting into them.
The Requirement / Data team will continue as it did under SS, they will report into the DOF. All big picture football matters in terms of style of football, strategy, recruitment, etc. will be a group decision between the CEO, DOF, Head of Recruitment and Head Coach.
SS was not an experienced guy, but he had lots of current LEAGUE football experience, and surrounded himself with plenty of experienced coaches. This HAS to be the requirement of the new Head Coach, i.e. recent league, Championship or Premier League coaching experience (i.e. Andrew Crofts), with then a requirement to bring in a big team for support, ideally with more senior experienced people.
I don't believe ND will be anymore hands on now that he was with SS, its NDs job to manage all the football elements, including academy, women's set up, big picture football strategy etc.
I am sure ND internally will have taken some of the blame for the Foster appointment, but him, CEO and Owner will also share some of that blame. This was ND's first failure at Argyle and he still has a lot of credit, as mentioned he is also there to manage a lot more than overseeing the first team structure.
A young, high performing, dynamic coach is what young players respond to now a days, and that model of a young squad with protentional to monetise assets is what Argyle are aiming for, so there is no point in appointing an old style 'Manager'.
I think the appointment of Foster was nearly a good one, the mistake was Argyle / he didn't bring in immediately a team of experienced coaches that had been managing in the league to give him that sense check, let him know he isn't managing a team of England U17s/20s etc. That said its also likely Foster wasn't willing to change / wasn't able to be the person he came across as under interview.
I am optimistic we will get it right this time....