rumours on Twitter that JJ will only be given a deal until the end of the season. Take it for what you will, no idea on the origin of the story.
An absolute insult to JJ if true. If true he should tell him to stick it
I may be wrong & If so apologies Rick but I thought i saw a post from Airman on one of the threads that he expected JJ to get the job until the end of the season. If that is so then it's disgraceful, if sandgaard had said from the outset that it's until the end of the season & we'll see how we go that might have been different but as we all know JJ has turned the whole club around. We are still in with a chance of a play off place rather fighting against relegation which is where we were headed & if sandgaard & his "advisors" are too stupid to see that then he can get on with it & shove that crappy song together with his guitar right up his arse because he'll be no better than the Belgian.
By the way as far fetched as it may sound, with all the free tickets flying around it did cross my mind that they could be a sweetener for when JJ doesn't get the job.
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
Got to be an 1.5 year deal as a minimum. A contract until the end of the season would suggest TS isn’t convinced, perhaps believing a manager needs more experience to succeed longer term, or he’s too fixed on his vision of playing 4-3-3 throughout the club.
JJ however is the right manager for this group of players. After Adkins dreadful start he’s giving us an outside chance of promotion this season.
Three at the back is also becoming more widely used with clubs moving away from 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 - maybe the academy should follow the first team rather than the other way around.
Powell and Bowyer along with plenty of managers outside the club have shown managerial experience isn’t a requirement to get promoted from this division.
Winning that promotion creates momentum. With more investment we’d likely have continued to make progress under Powell and Bowyer. Build on what we have now, we’ll get results and play good football.
We have a great chance to do that with Jackson if TS backs him. A contract until the summer is effectively just giving him an extension as caretaker and will impact what we can do in the January and summer windows. Won’t get anywhere near that long term vision if we’re still in League 1 in two years time.
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
It’s gonna be over money , it usually is … with each good result JJ’s bargaining position becomes higher … can’t believe Prague you haven’t mentioned the skulduggery of an agent in this , they’re always loitering in the background and TS loves them as much as you !
JJ strikes me as the type of fella that does not require an agent. But if he has does anyone know who it is?
I have no idea. I'd say @Scoham is right, but that you are also right in the sense that Jacko seems like a guy who makes sure that the agent understands that he -Jacko-is the boss, and not the other way round. (which a lot of footballers, understandably struggle to do with that manipulative,greedy, gang of no-marks - ok @oohaahmortimer ? )
JJ needs to be given a contract until the end of next season, minimum.
Play-offs are still possible but still difficult given the dreadful start we made so what does giving him until the end of the season achieve? What does he have to do to earn a longer deal? Surely you don't get rid of him because he doesn't make the play-offs?
You surely at least give him a full season and a couple of transfer windows.
If he gets it until the end of the season and his objective is play-offs or bust then I expect to see him backed heavily in January otherwise it's just an insult and a disgrace.
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
I think a better example than Ajax would be Southampton and Swansea, maybe even MK Dons. Where it is/was style and culture more than rigid formations and tactics.
Adkins did play 352 twice, and they were probably the worst two performances in each of his mini seasons. So he wasn't strictly bound to 4231. Last season he even played different versions of 433 with subtle tweeks.
One thing that puzzles me generally is all the players who played on Tuesday played in a different system and/or position to the one they were signed to play in. Which suggests they are very good players but not necessarily at what they were signed for. Including ones that predated Adkins as well. Luck or judgement?
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
Well, I'm replying because I think its an interesting discussion, rather than to challenge your opinion, so please take it in this spirit, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to have Ajax as anything more than a very general reference point, when concluding as an owner what kind of football strategy you want your club to adopt (and it is a good idea, I agree, to have such a strategy - upt to a point). When it comes to the Ajax style, it is usually associated with Total Football, which is the complete opposite of a fixed formation approach. Now again, I want to say that many here will be much better tactical readers of the game than I, but the last time I watched the modern Ajax (the season they lost to Spurs), that looked a lot more like the old Total Football than 4-3-3.
But it's interesting that you nominated Ajax rather than a big FAPL club; it seems strategically smart to have a long term vision for the type of football you will play - if you are a club that absolutely dominates your nation, and is a natural magnet for talented kids from all around the major city where you reside, not to mention that country's colonies. If you are a club in the densely packed English league, where you could say that in the last 50 years around 60 other clubs have at various times considered themselves to be as "big" as you...well I think you have to be a bit more pragmatic.
This bothers me because while I'm not a tactical reader of football, fortunately I started my marketing career in a company that knew its stuff, and had it drummed into me the difference between Objectives/Strategy/Plan. For "plan" you can sub "tactics". I'm pretty ok that as a footie club you can have a *strategy* that you will tend to play in attacking style. because that is arguably what will please fans the most, and thus get them to pay more money to support you. And part of that strategy may well be to align all parts of the playing operation towards that general strategy. Makes sense. But going as far as to say, in order to deliver this attacking football you have to play 4-3-3...? Nah, sorry, formation is a purely tactical thing which you might not even play for a full 90 minutes before changing.
But I can imagine that there are people in football who come along preaching that due to their superior insights, they have proved that the only way to deliver "attacking/exciting football" is to play 4-3-3. To me they are the equivalent of those in marketing who climbed on the digital bandwagon and told the big companies that they should scrap all their TV ad budgets and shove it all into Facebook. They got traction for a while, but pretty quickly the likes of P&G and Unilever exposed them for what they are - charlatans. But they are still out there, preying on less strategically clued up businesses. Let's hope their football equivalent are not in Thomas' ear. But going back to your earlier point, someone is in Thomas' ear. That's to be expected. Unlike Duchatelet, Thomas has shown he isn't afraid to consult and pay for top quality advice in the relevant fields. Freshfields, Control Risks...so it would be natural, wise even to have football advisers to help him in an industry he knows nothing about. How else could he have hit upon the idea of replacing Bowyer with Adkins....
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
Well, I'm replying because I think its an interesting discussion, rather than to challenge your opinion, so please take it in this spirit, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to have Ajax as anything more than a very general reference point, when concluding as an owner what kind of football strategy you want your club to adopt (and it is a good idea, I agree, to have such a strategy - upt to a point). When it comes to the Ajax style, it is usually associated with Total Football, which is the complete opposite of a fixed formation approach. Now again, I want to say that many here will be much better tactical readers of the game than I, but the last time I watched the modern Ajax (the season they lost to Spurs), that looked a lot more like the old Total Football than 4-3-3.
But it's interesting that you nominated Ajax rather than a big FAPL club; it seems strategically smart to have a long term vision for the type of football you will play - if you are a club that absolutely dominates your nation, and is a natural magnet for talented kids from all around the major city where you reside, not to mention that country's colonies. If you are a club in the densely packed English league, where you could say that in the last 50 years around 60 other clubs have at various times considered themselves to be as "big" as you...well I think you have to be a bit more pragmatic.
This bothers me because while I'm not a tactical reader of football, fortunately I started my marketing career in a company that knew its stuff, and had it drummed into me the difference between Objectives/Strategy/Plan. For "plan" you can sub "tactics". I'm pretty ok that as a footie club you can have a *strategy* that you will tend to play in attacking style. because that is arguably what will please fans the most, and thus get them to pay more money to support you. And part of that strategy may well be to align all parts of the playing operation towards that general strategy. Makes sense. But going as far as to say, in order to deliver this attacking football you have to play 4-3-3...? Nah, sorry, formation is a purely tactical thing which you might not even play for a full 90 minutes before changing.
But I can imagine that there are people in football who come along preaching that due to their superior insights, they have proved that the only way to deliver "attacking/exciting football" is to play 4-3-3. To me they are the equivalent of those in marketing who climbed on the digital bandwagon and told the big companies that they should scrap all their TV ad budgets and shove it all into Facebook. They got traction for a while, but pretty quickly the likes of P&G and Unilever exposed them for what they are - charlatans. But they are still out there, preying on less strategically clued up businesses. Let's hope their football equivalent are not in Thomas' ear. But going back to your earlier point, someone is in Thomas' ear. That's to be expected. Unlike Duchatelet, Thomas has shown he isn't afraid to consult and pay for top quality advice in the relevant fields. Freshfields, Control Risks...so it would be natural, wise even to have football advisers to help him in an industry he knows nothing about. How else could he have hit upon the idea of replacing Bowyer with Adkins....
It's quite possible, and highly probable, that Thomas picked Adkins.
Thomas, and I don't mean this as a criticism, is like 99% of people that post on this forum. We could all probably go on mastermind and do well with football related questions, discuss tactics, formations and player attributes until the cows come home. But we have never done it.
He said he wanted an experienced manager. 3 promotions from the division, including back to back. If he followed the EPL via TV, which I strongly suspect, he probably knew who Adkins was. I suspect his CV ticked a lot of boxes, including bringing through young players.
I would imagine if you interviewed/met Adkins, based on the above you wouldn't need much convincing he knew what he was talking about.
It wasn't as much of a left field appointment as someone like Steve Kean or David Hockaday were. If it was a Roddy appointment I would have expected someone more like Boothroyd or Manning.
Jacko needs and deserves the security of a long term contract of at least 2 years, not just a token "gift" till the end of the season as has been suggested on this thread which is just an insult, he needs this sorted as a mater of some urgency to enable plans to be drawn up prior to the next window. And as has been reported in the SLP, Washington and Purrington contracts need re negotiating and until he has been sorted his hands are tied somewhat..
“I haven’t signed myself, so it’s difficult for me to forward plan too much,” Jackson told the South London Press. “But they have both been brilliant for me and they are a key part of what I’m trying to do.
“We’re going to need to look at those situations very soon – and our recruitment in January. We need to think about the ones we want to get tied down longer term as well, the ones who are with us.
So, come on Thomas, get off your high seat and do the right thing NOW..
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
Well, I'm replying because I think its an interesting discussion, rather than to challenge your opinion, so please take it in this spirit, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to have Ajax as anything more than a very general reference point, when concluding as an owner what kind of football strategy you want your club to adopt (and it is a good idea, I agree, to have such a strategy - upt to a point). When it comes to the Ajax style, it is usually associated with Total Football, which is the complete opposite of a fixed formation approach. Now again, I want to say that many here will be much better tactical readers of the game than I, but the last time I watched the modern Ajax (the season they lost to Spurs), that looked a lot more like the old Total Football than 4-3-3.
But it's interesting that you nominated Ajax rather than a big FAPL club; it seems strategically smart to have a long term vision for the type of football you will play - if you are a club that absolutely dominates your nation, and is a natural magnet for talented kids from all around the major city where you reside, not to mention that country's colonies. If you are a club in the densely packed English league, where you could say that in the last 50 years around 60 other clubs have at various times considered themselves to be as "big" as you...well I think you have to be a bit more pragmatic.
This bothers me because while I'm not a tactical reader of football, fortunately I started my marketing career in a company that knew its stuff, and had it drummed into me the difference between Objectives/Strategy/Plan. For "plan" you can sub "tactics". I'm pretty ok that as a footie club you can have a *strategy* that you will tend to play in attacking style. because that is arguably what will please fans the most, and thus get them to pay more money to support you. And part of that strategy may well be to align all parts of the playing operation towards that general strategy. Makes sense. But going as far as to say, in order to deliver this attacking football you have to play 4-3-3...? Nah, sorry, formation is a purely tactical thing which you might not even play for a full 90 minutes before changing.
But I can imagine that there are people in football who come along preaching that due to their superior insights, they have proved that the only way to deliver "attacking/exciting football" is to play 4-3-3. To me they are the equivalent of those in marketing who climbed on the digital bandwagon and told the big companies that they should scrap all their TV ad budgets and shove it all into Facebook. They got traction for a while, but pretty quickly the likes of P&G and Unilever exposed them for what they are - charlatans. But they are still out there, preying on less strategically clued up businesses. Let's hope their football equivalent are not in Thomas' ear. But going back to your earlier point, someone is in Thomas' ear. That's to be expected. Unlike Duchatelet, Thomas has shown he isn't afraid to consult and pay for top quality advice in the relevant fields. Freshfields, Control Risks...so it would be natural, wise even to have football advisers to help him in an industry he knows nothing about. How else could he have hit upon the idea of replacing Bowyer with Adkins....
Not taking anything said as a challenge at all mate, find the debate around the set up worthwhile, we know just enough so imagination runs wild.
Only picked Ajax as they're the only team I know that outright say they play to a certain formation (how strict they adhere to that no idea though) Pep, Arsenal etc all have an identity but not tied to a formation and like @Cafc43v3r says the saints model is probably closer to what we may or may not be going for.
Mmmh getting ourselves in the exact same situation with Washington and Purrington as we have with Taylor/Aneke/Phillips/Bauer.
I thought we were going to nail the contracts of players that we valued.
Well...Give Jacko the contract and the means to get the job done and we may get there..contract extensions could be an easier ride with Jacko at the helm as the players have said, he is the one they all want, start with Jacko and the rest should follow..
My own thoughts are the club originally wanted to stick to a model ie 433 & run it through all the age groups & recruitment with the 4 amigos agreeing jointly. I can only think Jacko may not agree with this & this is what the discussions are about!
Can you name a club where a team formation was adopted as a fixed strategy rather than a tactical decision which could be varied according to the strengths or otherwise of available players and/or that of the opposition on the day? I think its a pretty ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately it could be both a pretty ridiculous idea, but nevertheless one held by people of influence in the club. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, simply that in the Duchatelet era we saw some ridiculous ideas actually implemented…
Ajax.
Ok, tell me more
I dont watch much so-called elite football any more. I’m aware that Ajax have built a strong club culture based around a highly successful academy. And on the few occasions I’ve seen them they seem to play a fluid formation that was hard to figure out without help. Does that make it a fixed formation, running through the club?
Of course I remember (and loved) the old Ajax too.
Surely nobody is telling Thomas we can be the new Ajax?
On a similar theme, the Athletic has a good article on why the Leipzig corporate vehicle parted company with their American coach a week ago. Described a situation where he was supposed to deliver a certain way of playing ( back to their old successful high press/energy style) which didnt work because the current squad had been built around a different style, and some players were not suited to it. In a Charlton context it seems as if JJ has come in and delivered the playing style that TS wanted, and finally got to utilise effectively the players brought in to play to that style, esp. Dobson, Clare and DJ. Whereas Adkins, who was in the room when Clare and Dobson were agreed on, didnt seem to have a scooby about the formation they would work in. You’d imagine TS could only be delighted at this immediate delivery of his idea of how we should play, after the horrors of the first 2 months.
Weird.
Everyone's favourite 433.
"...Ajax is partly dependant on players from its own youth academy. The youth teams are trained in exactly the same way as the first team en these boys are therefore already accustomed to Ajax’s style of play.
Central within the club is the style of play (4-3-3), training, behaviour and house rules. Ajax strives to keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...."
Why does someone have to be telling Thomas? I know it's against CL law to imply he might be in the wrong or have a shite idea, but, maybe, the bloke who spent X amount of money buying us and running us wants to see his investment- football club - built in certain way.
Or, yeah, Ged Roddy in the boardroom with the butter knife.
Well. If he wants to "keep the way of playing football recognisable; attractive, offensive-minded, creative, fast, fair and preferably far away from the own goal on the opponents’ half...." then I think we are all delighted and singing "bring it on' to a hard rock backing.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
Well, I'm replying because I think its an interesting discussion, rather than to challenge your opinion, so please take it in this spirit, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to have Ajax as anything more than a very general reference point, when concluding as an owner what kind of football strategy you want your club to adopt (and it is a good idea, I agree, to have such a strategy - upt to a point). When it comes to the Ajax style, it is usually associated with Total Football, which is the complete opposite of a fixed formation approach. Now again, I want to say that many here will be much better tactical readers of the game than I, but the last time I watched the modern Ajax (the season they lost to Spurs), that looked a lot more like the old Total Football than 4-3-3.
But it's interesting that you nominated Ajax rather than a big FAPL club; it seems strategically smart to have a long term vision for the type of football you will play - if you are a club that absolutely dominates your nation, and is a natural magnet for talented kids from all around the major city where you reside, not to mention that country's colonies. If you are a club in the densely packed English league, where you could say that in the last 50 years around 60 other clubs have at various times considered themselves to be as "big" as you...well I think you have to be a bit more pragmatic.
This bothers me because while I'm not a tactical reader of football, fortunately I started my marketing career in a company that knew its stuff, and had it drummed into me the difference between Objectives/Strategy/Plan. For "plan" you can sub "tactics". I'm pretty ok that as a footie club you can have a *strategy* that you will tend to play in attacking style. because that is arguably what will please fans the most, and thus get them to pay more money to support you. And part of that strategy may well be to align all parts of the playing operation towards that general strategy. Makes sense. But going as far as to say, in order to deliver this attacking football you have to play 4-3-3...? Nah, sorry, formation is a purely tactical thing which you might not even play for a full 90 minutes before changing.
But I can imagine that there are people in football who come along preaching that due to their superior insights, they have proved that the only way to deliver "attacking/exciting football" is to play 4-3-3. To me they are the equivalent of those in marketing who climbed on the digital bandwagon and told the big companies that they should scrap all their TV ad budgets and shove it all into Facebook. They got traction for a while, but pretty quickly the likes of P&G and Unilever exposed them for what they are - charlatans. But they are still out there, preying on less strategically clued up businesses. Let's hope their football equivalent are not in Thomas' ear. But going back to your earlier point, someone is in Thomas' ear. That's to be expected. Unlike Duchatelet, Thomas has shown he isn't afraid to consult and pay for top quality advice in the relevant fields. Freshfields, Control Risks...so it would be natural, wise even to have football advisers to help him in an industry he knows nothing about. How else could he have hit upon the idea of replacing Bowyer with Adkins....
It's quite possible, and highly probable, that Thomas picked Adkins.
Thomas, and I don't mean this as a criticism, is like 99% of people that post on this forum. We could all probably go on mastermind and do well with football related questions, discuss tactics, formations and player attributes until the cows come home. But we have never done it.
He said he wanted an experienced manager. 3 promotions from the division, including back to back. If he followed the EPL via TV, which I strongly suspect, he probably knew who Adkins was. I suspect his CV ticked a lot of boxes, including bringing through young players.
I would imagine if you interviewed/met Adkins, based on the above you wouldn't need much convincing he knew what he was talking about.
It wasn't as much of a left field appointment as someone like Steve Kean or David Hockaday were. If it was a Roddy appointment I would have expected someone more like Boothroyd or Manning.
I'd agree it's quite possible. But equally, Thomas has as I mentioned earlier shown he is not afraid to spend top dollar on external experts on matters he hasn't encountered before. He will have recruited senior management before in his business life- but in a quite different business. He might or might not nowadays use external recruiters for Zynex, but if he didn't he'd definitely call on a network of people he trusts, to recommend somebody. He wouldn't have such a network, coming into English football.
The more I think about it, the more I doubt he would draw up a long-list completely on his own. Honestly, I've met (and assisted) so many top corporate directors who admitted that getting senior hiring right is one of the most difficult tasks they face, and they hate it, because it involves using quite different personal skills to those they normally use in the rest of their work.
I deffo agree with you about Adkins, that he "interviews well' - but then I'd feel as the interviewer at a huge disadvantage because I haven't got the knowledge or experience to detect bullshit in that field. I watched and listened to Ged Roddy on the Zoom call with Gallen, with great curiosity given the hoo-hah, and I had to concede that everything he said made perfect sense and was very well expressed. But then quite literally in this case, what do I know?
Comments
can’t imagine what would happen if Jacko doesn’t get the gig
(I’m still convinced he will)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59565107
It was mentioned on the Managerial Sackings thread.
If however he has decided for some reason that the only way to achieve this - in the English 3rd Division - is to play 4-3-3, and only 4-3-3 - then we are back in Duchatelet la-la land.
JJ however is the right manager for this group of players. After Adkins dreadful start he’s giving us an outside chance of promotion this season.
Three at the back is also becoming more widely used with clubs moving away from 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 - maybe the academy should follow the first team rather than the other way around.
Powell and Bowyer along with plenty of managers outside the club have shown managerial experience isn’t a requirement to get promoted from this division.
Winning that promotion creates momentum. With more investment we’d likely have continued to make progress under Powell and Bowyer. Build on what we have now, we’ll get results and play good football.
We have a great chance to do that with Jackson if TS backs him. A contract until the summer is effectively just giving him an extension as caretaker and will impact what we can do in the January and summer windows. Won’t get anywhere near that long term vision if we’re still in League 1 in two years time.
And that's the potential question/ issue/ scares about nothing.
If such a plan exists (and I think it's safe to assume there is) then it's about the level of involvement, and how strict/ rigid it all is.
Nothing wrong with wanting to turn us into the next Ajax, but, baby steps and not trying to turn a league one team into a footballing showcase over a summer.
So, let Jackson start us on that journey and build it sensibly.
can’t believe Prague you haven’t mentioned the skulduggery of an agent in this , they’re always loitering in the background and TS loves them as much as you !
Play-offs are still possible but still difficult given the dreadful start we made so what does giving him until the end of the season achieve? What does he have to do to earn a longer deal? Surely you don't get rid of him because he doesn't make the play-offs?
You surely at least give him a full season and a couple of transfer windows.
If he gets it until the end of the season and his objective is play-offs or bust then I expect to see him backed heavily in January otherwise it's just an insult and a disgrace.
Adkins did play 352 twice, and they were probably the worst two performances in each of his mini seasons. So he wasn't strictly bound to 4231. Last season he even played different versions of 433 with subtle tweeks.
One thing that puzzles me generally is all the players who played on Tuesday played in a different system and/or position to the one they were signed to play in. Which suggests they are very good players but not necessarily at what they were signed for. Including ones that predated Adkins as well. Luck or judgement?
We could see a dip in the team's performance if the JJ situation goes on too long. Nail it while there is momentum.
But it's interesting that you nominated Ajax rather than a big FAPL club; it seems strategically smart to have a long term vision for the type of football you will play - if you are a club that absolutely dominates your nation, and is a natural magnet for talented kids from all around the major city where you reside, not to mention that country's colonies. If you are a club in the densely packed English league, where you could say that in the last 50 years around 60 other clubs have at various times considered themselves to be as "big" as you...well I think you have to be a bit more pragmatic.
This bothers me because while I'm not a tactical reader of football, fortunately I started my marketing career in a company that knew its stuff, and had it drummed into me the difference between Objectives/Strategy/Plan. For "plan" you can sub "tactics". I'm pretty ok that as a footie club you can have a *strategy* that you will tend to play in attacking style. because that is arguably what will please fans the most, and thus get them to pay more money to support you. And part of that strategy may well be to align all parts of the playing operation towards that general strategy. Makes sense. But going as far as to say, in order to deliver this attacking football you have to play 4-3-3...? Nah, sorry, formation is a purely tactical thing which you might not even play for a full 90 minutes before changing.
But I can imagine that there are people in football who come along preaching that due to their superior insights, they have proved that the only way to deliver "attacking/exciting football" is to play 4-3-3. To me they are the equivalent of those in marketing who climbed on the digital bandwagon and told the big companies that they should scrap all their TV ad budgets and shove it all into Facebook. They got traction for a while, but pretty quickly the likes of P&G and Unilever exposed them for what they are - charlatans. But they are still out there, preying on less strategically clued up businesses. Let's hope their football equivalent are not in Thomas' ear. But going back to your earlier point, someone is in Thomas' ear. That's to be expected. Unlike Duchatelet, Thomas has shown he isn't afraid to consult and pay for top quality advice in the relevant fields. Freshfields, Control Risks...so it would be natural, wise even to have football advisers to help him in an industry he knows nothing about. How else could he have hit upon the idea of replacing Bowyer with Adkins....
Thomas, and I don't mean this as a criticism, is like 99% of people that post on this forum. We could all probably go on mastermind and do well with football related questions, discuss tactics, formations and player attributes until the cows come home. But we have never done it.
He said he wanted an experienced manager. 3 promotions from the division, including back to back. If he followed the EPL via TV, which I strongly suspect, he probably knew who Adkins was. I suspect his CV ticked a lot of boxes, including bringing through young players.
I would imagine if you interviewed/met Adkins, based on the above you wouldn't need much convincing he knew what he was talking about.
It wasn't as much of a left field appointment as someone like Steve Kean or David Hockaday were. If it was a Roddy appointment I would have expected someone more like Boothroyd or Manning.
And as has been reported in the SLP, Washington and Purrington contracts need re negotiating and until he has been sorted his hands are tied somewhat..
“I haven’t signed myself, so it’s difficult for me to forward plan too much,” Jackson told the South London Press. “But they have both been brilliant for me and they are a key part of what I’m trying to do.
“We’re going to need to look at those situations very soon – and our recruitment in January. We need to think about the ones we want to get tied down longer term as well, the ones who are with us.
So, come on Thomas, get off your high seat and do the right thing NOW..
I thought we were going to nail the contracts of players that we valued.
Not taking anything said as a challenge at all mate, find the debate around the set up worthwhile, we know just enough so imagination runs wild.
Only picked Ajax as they're the only team I know that outright say they play to a certain formation (how strict they adhere to that no idea though) Pep, Arsenal etc all have an identity but not tied to a formation and like @Cafc43v3r says the saints model is probably closer to what we may or may not be going for.
The more I think about it, the more I doubt he would draw up a long-list completely on his own. Honestly, I've met (and assisted) so many top corporate directors who admitted that getting senior hiring right is one of the most difficult tasks they face, and they hate it, because it involves using quite different personal skills to those they normally use in the rest of their work.
I deffo agree with you about Adkins, that he "interviews well' - but then I'd feel as the interviewer at a huge disadvantage because I haven't got the knowledge or experience to detect bullshit in that field. I watched and listened to Ged Roddy on the Zoom call with Gallen, with great curiosity given the hoo-hah, and I had to concede that everything he said made perfect sense and was very well expressed. But then quite literally in this case, what do I know?
The fans want it, the players want it. It's very strange