But also, common sense indicated managers don't really have the info to make great transfer decisions. How can they? If they play the team of the transfer target, the most they see them is twice. Other than that, they don't see them in person at all. They are either relying on scouts (no evidence they know much either, since they probably see a player a couple times in person also, at most) or YouTube. More than likely, they just look at their stats and say "I want him!" Not much to that. Certainly does not make them good at it. The transfer market is littered with awful transfers from supposed genius managers. Most of whom get sacked on average every 50 matches or so, which just goes to show how little they matter in the scheme of things, over time.
Not a single graph you showed suggested anyone other than a manager would do a better job at deciding transfers. You could argue, based on those stats that clubs would be better off keeping their best players but that's obvious, is it not? Sadly player power often dictates that can't happen.
Managers rely on a lot more than stats and youtube, have yoy heard of scouts? Pretty useful people, I imagine.
Clearly managars have a huge influence on results, that's why the best ones are succesful - almost - everywhere they go
Once Roland’s data man started making some transfers and our wage bill got high , we got relegated and were shit . now Steve Gallen is in charge and the wage bill is going down we have a chance of success .
Hardly. This is from two studies. What matters is simply "wages." Over time, the market for players is simple... the best players make more per year. It is a very efficient market. The higher the wages for the players, the better you do, on average. Yet studies on net transfer spend show far less relationship to winning than simply the wage of the staff. And high transfer spending is not the same as the wage bill. Fulham, for example, this year.
Have got to say, why are we even giving this bellend the time of day? I am sure he thrives off the attention and loves blocking Charlton supporters who gives him what he rightly deserves, but people like him are best left to be ignored. That’s just my honest opinion.
Have League 1 clubs been successful by having a director of football or similar deciding on transfers?
How do clubs at this level find and attract a director of football that they can be sure will stick with them long term and do a good job?
I’d imagine part of the reason it work higher up is because there are managers/scouts etc who have proven themselves and step up to the role. Who would you choose for that role while in this league?
Steve Gallen’s doing a brilliant job but I don’t think I’d want him in charge of hiring and firing head coaches/managers.
The further up you go you have more players staying at clubs for longer. Lower leagues have shorter term contracts and there are more clubs that could be looking to sign their better players. In the Prem for example a Spurs player can only make a step up by signing for a handful of other clubs or perhaps going abroad. If you we don’t go up there will be Prem, Championship and foreign clubs looking at the likes of Aribo.
A League 1 club can’t build a strong team over the longer term without the club progressing by winning promotions or perhaps getting a lot of investment.
What works well at the top level doesn’t necessarily apply in the lower divisions. It’s nothing to do with me not liking data - I work as an analyst and was also an FM researcher/scout for 12 years.
Not a single graph you showed suggested anyone other than a manager would do a better job at deciding transfers. You could argue, based on those stats that clubs would be better off keeping their best players but that's obvious, is it not? Sadly player power often dictates that can't happen.
Managers rely on a lot more than stats and youtube, have yoy heard of scouts? Pretty useful people, I imagine.
Clearly managars have a huge influence on results, that's why the best ones are succesful - almost - everywhere they go
Can see your point in the first 3 paragraphs but not your last. The best ones are successful everywhere they go because everywhere they go are the highest paid players. Pep, for example... ManC, Bayern, Barca. Not exactly clubs needing a turnaround. Put him on Huddersfield without a transfer budget and they go down this year.
Do you have any data that might be useful for today though. Graph one is 7 years out of date, graph 2 is from the last Century and the in final graph Thomas Driesen was still shitting in his nappies.
Napa - none of your posts has given any information or data relative to your claim. Nothing you have posted sheds any light on whether managers (compared to others) are poor at transfers.
It's self-evident that some signings are better than others; and, by extension, some are worse than others. Comparing signings with signings adds no weight to your claim that "managers are poor at transfers".
Thomas Driesen's tweet made the contentious claim, implying that others within a club's internal or external advisors make consistently better decisions.
The simple proof of the utter ridiculousness of his suggestion is a brief look at the signings he influenced.
But I now see you've totally changed your original post. Do you, therefore, agree that there is no evidence at all that managers are poor at transfers?
And were you being serious when you suggested managers only see other teams live play twice a season?
Not a single graph you showed suggested anyone other than a manager would do a better job at deciding transfers. You could argue, based on those stats that clubs would be better off keeping their best players but that's obvious, is it not? Sadly player power often dictates that can't happen.
Managers rely on a lot more than stats and youtube, have yoy heard of scouts? Pretty useful people, I imagine.
Clearly managars have a huge influence on results, that's why the best ones are succesful - almost - everywhere they go
Can see your point in the first 3 paragraphs but not your last. The best ones are successful everywhere they go because everywhere they go are the highest paid players. Pep, for example... ManC, Bayern, Barca. Not exactly clubs needing a turnaround. Put him on Huddersfield without a transfer budget and they go down this year.
That's just not true, how did Porto win the CL? Look how many players have improved under Pep and Bowyer, what about Southgate? To suggest managers do not matter is like claiming tactics are irrelevant, it's ridiculous.
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Am sorry but for me the best way isnt the Driesen method yet nor the Manager one
The best type of Recruitment is the sort of one we have at present... Steve Gallen does the job in the background, getting the shortlisted players and presenting them to Bowyer, no doubt the two of them will sit down and go through that list of players together at some stage with Bowyer making his own comments on who he thinks will fit in with the rest of the squad.
When it comes to approaching the Player, again it should be the job of both Recruitment and Manager to sit down with the player... After all the Manager needs to know the attitude of the player that is being signed, if they're a little shit who might be disruptive to the harmony of the squad then I imagine the talks would end (But at the same time I guess the Recruitment research will also involve speaking with coaches and managers that have previously worked with said player so they'll already know about attitude issues) - Of course it'll no doubt be Gallen in his joint role of CEO who'll negotiate wages / bonuses with the player leaving Bowyer to get on with the rest of the squad whilst he waits to hear if the club has been successful
Firstly no amount of "data" or "spreadsheets" can replicate that sort of work... That mentioned can only represent the stats of what a player can achieve, it tells a Manager nothing about whether the player has the playing style to fit in with the system that is played at the club - Plus I can imagine the worst case for Chris Powell when players showed up at the Training Ground was the fact he'd no doubt have to waste time talking to the player finding out where they play and how they play etc. (something that as mentioned should be sorted out long before any paperwork is finalised!!)
In my opinion its how we ended up with some good players that ended up playing poorly for us (and so relegated us from the Championship) because they were good players that were put together in any old system that tried to play to all their strengths (whatever that was) rather than molding them into a collective unit, like what Bowyer has achieved this season!!
There is not a strong enough argument for either side.
The data (sounds like star trek now) can build the significant information in regards to how good a player might be for the club.
Manager/scouts/coaching staff/players can also make decisions or pass on references. (References being from the scouts coaches and players, obviously etc)
Some signings are good. Some signings are not so good.
So, having said that....in order to keep strong morale.
I believe that the manager should have the final say.
The player will feel wanted. The manager will feel like he is in control and he is respected.
"The data" can go and shove itself on a huge pile of horse manure.
Looking forward to meeting Thomas and Roland at the Valley on Friday.
On that point, which senior board member is going to welcome the Doncaster Directors on Friday?, or are they going to be left to look after themselves ;-)
Looking forward to meeting Thomas and Roland at the Valley on Friday.
On that point, which senior board member is going to welcome the Doncaster Directors on Friday?, or are they going to be left to look after themselves ;-)
Thomas has suggested to Roland that the data shows a hologram of a clown would make the best host so they’re going with that.
Looking forward to meeting Thomas and Roland at the Valley on Friday.
On that point, which senior board member is going to welcome the Doncaster Directors on Friday?, or are they going to be left to look after themselves ;-)
Well, our Board representatives packed out the Directors box yesterday.
Only two of them were present for the league game there though, funnily enough.
Our best season in recent years involved Chris Powell coming in, being given the money and freedom to make his own transfer decisions after half a season of looking at the players currently at his disposal, and then using his knowledge of the league and players he had previously worked with to construct a team. He knew he wanted a passing keeper, he knew he could pick off good players from Bournemouth, he identified out of contract players to bolster the squad, like Taylor and Evina, and he used his prior stint at Leicester to bring in to of our best players who were down on their luck in Morrison and Yann. The team he put together was exactly what he wanted, from skill-sets down to personalities. Even when his budget was almost nothing he was good at identifying players who would fight for the cause even if their quality wasn't quite there. The likes of Simon Church, Richard Wood and Mark Gower weren't at the level we needed to kick on but they had the drive to keep us afloat when we needed them. Managers should always be able to identify key players for themselves because they know how they want to play, and they know the personalities they want to work with in their squad. Having a good recruitment set-up is important, but the manager should have sign-off. Man Utd are spending an insane amount on fees and wages at the moment, but most of their big signings are commercially driven now, so they bring in players who can shift millions of Instagram and Twitter numbers when their big reveal videos of the player dancing or playing the piano go up, but they don't fit how the manager wants to play. I'm pretty sure if you told Solskjaer he could shift Sanchez, Lukaku and Pogba and reinvest all that money in the players who fit his quick, counter-attacking style he'd be on the phone to potential signings before you'd finished the sentence.
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Anthony Seed ran the scouting operation, not Angus. Angus helped out, as a lower league manager.
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Anthony Seed ran the scouting operation, not Angus. Angus helped out, as a lower league manager.
As I typed it I couldn't remember if it was Anthony or Angus and I would have got away with if it wasn't for you!
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Anthony Seed ran the scouting operation, not Angus. Angus helped out, as a lower league manager.
As I typed it I couldn't remember if it was Anthony or Angus and I would have got away with if it wasn't for you!
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Anthony Seed ran the scouting operation, not Angus. Angus helped out, as a lower league manager.
As I typed it I couldn't remember if it was Anthony or Angus and I would have got away with if it wasn't for you!
I was about to say that you must mean Anthony.
I was about to DM AFKA to say Herny has been hacked by Millwall because all Charlton know it was Tony
Comments
Not a single graph you showed suggested anyone other than a manager would do a better job at deciding transfers. You could argue, based on those stats that clubs would be better off keeping their best players but that's obvious, is it not? Sadly player power often dictates that can't happen.
Managers rely on a lot more than stats and youtube, have yoy heard of scouts? Pretty useful people, I imagine.
Clearly managars have a huge influence on results, that's why the best ones are succesful - almost - everywhere they go
now Steve Gallen is in charge and the wage bill is going down we have a chance of success .
How do clubs at this level find and attract a director of football that they can be sure will stick with them long term and do a good job?
I’d imagine part of the reason it work higher up is because there are managers/scouts etc who have proven themselves and step up to the role. Who would you choose for that role while in this league?
Steve Gallen’s doing a brilliant job but I don’t think I’d want him in charge of hiring and firing head coaches/managers.
The further up you go you have more players staying at clubs for longer. Lower leagues have shorter term contracts and there are more clubs that could be looking to sign their better players. In the Prem for example a Spurs player can only make a step up by signing for a handful of other clubs or perhaps going abroad. If you we don’t go up there will be Prem, Championship and foreign clubs looking at the likes of Aribo.
A League 1 club can’t build a strong team over the longer term without the club progressing by winning promotions or perhaps getting a lot of investment.
What works well at the top level doesn’t necessarily apply in the lower divisions. It’s nothing to do with me not liking data - I work as an analyst and was also an FM researcher/scout for 12 years.
Do you have any data that might be useful for today though. Graph one is 7 years out of date, graph 2 is from the last Century and the in final graph Thomas Driesen was still shitting in his nappies.
It's self-evident that some signings are better than others; and, by extension, some are worse than others. Comparing signings with signings adds no weight to your claim that "managers are poor at transfers".
Thomas Driesen's tweet made the contentious claim, implying that others within a club's internal or external advisors make consistently better decisions.
The simple proof of the utter ridiculousness of his suggestion is a brief look at the signings he influenced.
But I now see you've totally changed your original post. Do you, therefore, agree that there is no evidence at all that managers are poor at transfers?
And were you being serious when you suggested managers only see other teams live play twice a season?
None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
The best type of Recruitment is the sort of one we have at present... Steve Gallen does the job in the background, getting the shortlisted players and presenting them to Bowyer, no doubt the two of them will sit down and go through that list of players together at some stage with Bowyer making his own comments on who he thinks will fit in with the rest of the squad.
When it comes to approaching the Player, again it should be the job of both Recruitment and Manager to sit down with the player... After all the Manager needs to know the attitude of the player that is being signed, if they're a little shit who might be disruptive to the harmony of the squad then I imagine the talks would end (But at the same time I guess the Recruitment research will also involve speaking with coaches and managers that have previously worked with said player so they'll already know about attitude issues) - Of course it'll no doubt be Gallen in his joint role of CEO who'll negotiate wages / bonuses with the player leaving Bowyer to get on with the rest of the squad whilst he waits to hear if the club has been successful
Firstly no amount of "data" or "spreadsheets" can replicate that sort of work... That mentioned can only represent the stats of what a player can achieve, it tells a Manager nothing about whether the player has the playing style to fit in with the system that is played at the club - Plus I can imagine the worst case for Chris Powell when players showed up at the Training Ground was the fact he'd no doubt have to waste time talking to the player finding out where they play and how they play etc. (something that as mentioned should be sorted out long before any paperwork is finalised!!)
In my opinion its how we ended up with some good players that ended up playing poorly for us (and so relegated us from the Championship) because they were good players that were put together in any old system that tried to play to all their strengths (whatever that was) rather than molding them into a collective unit, like what Bowyer has achieved this season!!
There is not a strong enough argument for either side.
The data (sounds like star trek now) can build the significant information in regards to how good a player might be for the club.
Manager/scouts/coaching staff/players can also make decisions or pass on references. (References being from the scouts coaches and players, obviously etc)
Some signings are good. Some signings are not so good.
So, having said that....in order to keep strong morale.
I believe that the manager should have the final say.
The player will feel wanted. The manager will feel like he is in control and he is respected.
"The data" can go and shove itself on a huge pile of horse manure.
Only two of them were present for the league game there though, funnily enough.
As I typed it I couldn't remember if it was Anthony or Angus and I would have got away with if it wasn't for you!
Indeed.
His gene pool is the equivalent to a barrel vomit