One of the dilemmas with Big Bob's appointment, is his actual role as Head Coach. One that I have a fair bit of confidence in. However, I've not started this thread about his appointment, as there is already a lengthy one on that. Indeed this thread is for the debate of whether you have a Head Coach, or a Manager.
Now it's not just a job title. It's far more important than that. A Manager, as we all know, decides everything. Who his staff are, transfers, player acquisitions, player contracts etc etc. But what of the role of Head Coach? Their role is just a fraction of that of a Manager. When it comes to transfers, the Head Coach may ask the owner, or Football Director et al, for a position to be filled. They won't get much of a say, if any who that will be. They just train, and pick the side. Unless of course you have a meddling owner.
Since RD took over it was quite clear that we would going down this route. As soon as he starting bring in players from his network (of which we are now part of, like or not), it was obvious a Manager could not be in position. Being part of this increasing network has it's advantages and disadvantages, but there is already a thread on that too.
Now, we have tried this structure before but that was with Iain Dowie, and his role was a hybrid between the two. Dowie would say what player he wanted, like a Manager would. But it was Mills (as General Manager) that paid over the odds, and dealt with the contractsfor them. It didn't work, and not just because of the personnel .
But I'm not saying that it wouldn't work now. We simply don't know. We've never been in this position before, and very few clubs have been. We have to be brave, and take a leap of faith. Something that we are well used to at Charlton.
I'm not going to pass judgment on the Head Coach v Manager argument. At least, not just yet. We need to see what happens with player acquisitions, as well as rapidly expiring player contracts, before we can start to decide if this whole episode is a disaster or the dawn of a new golden era. Only time will tell.
1
Comments
Then the Head Coach can turn around and say 'well i didn't sign these players!'
The reality is that there is very little, if any, difference between a Head Coach and a Manager - it really is just a job title. The Chairman and/or Chief Exec 'manage' the club.
It also appears that this is the exact way RD wants the club to be run.
There are exceptions - Ferguson and Wenger to name but two - who would have perhaps much more of a say but those two guys are/were in reality directors of the companies.
A manager or head coach would say I want another right midfielder and am interested in x - the Director of Football would enquire about x and also scout for other similar players. If available and affordable then negotiations commence - the manager WILL NOT decide how much to pay or how much the wages will be.
The observation you make is valid but is perceived wisdom - the reality is entirely different.
I base the following on my modest experience of senior football in UK football and having spent notable time over the past few years in France, about 20mns from Vannes (of YK fame), studying the fortunes of Rennes, Guingamp etc.,
The headline statement is the role at Charlton is no longer that of a Manager. It is a Head Coach. While there are variations on a theme under both descriptions there are fundamental differences in the roles' sphere of influence.
I note an earlier reference to Redknapp. I am not sure why anyone would believe a word he says/ publishes? Just follow the trail of debt he has left wherever he has managed? I have no time for the man after he stabbed Bonds in the back at West Ham. I agree however he may not set the final contracts. Most managers do not have the skill set, then again neither do the players. It is an aspect managed via agents & lawyers.
Traditional British Managers have a far greater control of their environment, they bring in their coaching & scouting teams and set the parameters under which they operate. Managers identify their own targets, not only in terms of specific players but in the skill sets and styles of the type of players they wish to recruit.
In most cases managers will complete the final scouting assessment. There will naturally be on going dialogue with the club executive during the process to determine whether a club can financially secure the signing of any targeted player. Some UK clubs have graduated to a recruitment "panel" as per the American Sports model.
However even in such an arrangement the danger of a conflict of interest remains where signings can start to identify with a specific manager where the club becomes at best a secondary interest. (i.e. I play for Chris Powell not Charlton Athletic)
The main challenge with the structure is the breadth and depth of skills required and probably why there were circa 40 departures across the 92 PL & League clubs last season. It is why the manager role, used in UK football manager is virtually unique in world sport. The skill set required today when, whether we like it or not, there is simply too much money involved (and at risk) is far too great to empower a single person. With a Head Coach the emphasis is different.
A Head Coach will have input into his coaching team but the club will make the final decision. e.g. Damien Matthew. I doubt M. Peeters will have ever met him before.
A Head Coach will have no direct control over the scouting regime or its operational parameters. Those will be determined and set by the club often by a Sporting Director. The Head Coach is still a key part of the process with input into preferred players targets and styles but not the final decision.
The club controls the relationship - the focus is the club, the focus is the team, the focus is the players.
This change of emphasis extends to the operating style within the football process. Once players are recruited it is the job of the Head Coach and his supporting staff to focus on improving each and every players performance and contribution to the team collective. As with the Manager, the Head coach will control the structure and selection of the team. Clearly however he will be held accountable to both the executive and any sporting director in terms of team and player performance and development.
It can be a more difficult working environment but the scouting and recruitment process is no longer his primary responsibility. His focus is predominately internal working to achieve success with those already within the club.
It is not about a Manager determining a team pattern and going out to recruit players to fit a specific pattern of play.
The priority is to work with the players identify their talent, strengths and weaknesses and develop a pattern to suit those strengths and weaknesses. It is by definition an inclusive process because you are specifically involved in improving the player to maximise their contribution to the team and squad.
You can argue that is precisely the role of the manager but the subtle difference is whereas a manager may have the luxury of a remit to bring in a raft of replacements if plan A is not working the head coach will not. The buy, plug in & play and discard style of a Barry Fry does not fit within such a role.
I am reluctant to do so because I have much respect for the contribution the man has made to the club but to reference the Dyer revelations I can imagine the Liege 4+2 being completely disenchanted if they were being regularly excluded especially when probably whiling away endless hours staring at the four walls of a not so great hotel
Dyers comments give an insight into the different approaches though in my modest experience it is usually the assistant manager and coaches charged with managing a players exclusion, involve the player, and literally get him back in the game.
At one level it is simply too easy to say X, Y, Z players are crap I need new ones. It is not the approach under a head coach. The focus of the club/ sporting director as with any business will be on the contribution of individuals in the club especially if they brought the individual to the club. So I can well imagine an otherwise very sound Powell/ Dyer regime being asked for their comments on the following;
1. Many people seem to think Green could play at this level - why did he not progress?
2. After his contribution in League 1 why has Hollands been discarded for the best part of 2 years?
3. Recognising efforts to retain his services why did Evina go from a real prospect to a stumbling shadow of himself?
4. Examining his exceptional statistics why was Pritchard allowed to fall away so badly?
5. With the dearth of options why did Smith never have a chance to establish himself?
6. With his experience why could Gower not contribute?
7. Why did it take so long for Sordell to deliver?
8. Why did Harriott struggle so badly for so long?
9. Why was Church so ineffective for us?
10. Why was Jordan Cook simply unable to step up?
Ask many of the above for comment they will reply I just wanted a real chance to show I could play. With injuries (happen at every club) to Solly, Cort & Hughes why were over 50% outfield players in the first team squad not contributing.
There will always be players who cannot step up or maintain their progress but with limited resources to exclude any player limits your options. Though a manager might mentally dismiss a player, the club does not have the luxury of so easily discarding their wage bill. 50% of the first team wage bill was producing no benefit to the club.
It was a challenge to throw in 6 new overseas faces into the mix and one probably completely outside the experience of the managerial and coaching staff but just how many players of the right quality are even going to available in a 2 week period in January let alone affordable? How many players of the right quality and calibre were ever going to be available on loan?
As for the interaction with the owner if you are the person who is picking up the tab you are going to be asking some very serious questions when results are not being delivered.
Whether they were couched in the right terms and in the right way - it would seem is more than debatable but I seem to recall a thousand voices from stands not to mention several hundred contributors on this board regularly posing their challenges.
It seems a little churlish to suggest the guy at the top of the tree does not have the right to do the same.
It is what owners, CEOs and managing directors are supposed to do!
2. After his contribution in League 1 why has Hollands been discarded for the best part of 2 years?
3. Recognising efforts to retain his services why did Evina go from a real prospect to a stumbling shadow of himself?
4. Examining his exceptional statistics why was Pritchard allowed to fall away so badly?
5. With the dearth of options why did Smith never have a chance to establish himself?
6. With his experience why could Gower not contribute?
7. Why did it take so long for Sordell to deliver?
8. Why did Harriott struggle so badly for so long?
9. Why was Church so ineffective for us?
10. Why was Jordan Cook simply unable to step up?
1. He is piss poor and cant cross a pools coupon, unless attempting to shoot from a corner
2. Not got the legs (or skill to offset no legs)
3. Was evina every really a serious prospect ? not a touch on wiggins for me
4. Championship was a step too far for him
5. Budget cuts and hoof ball
6. injured lots I thought
7. Hoof ball
8. Didnt he get singled out for bad performance by Powell ? Not everyone needs to be crushed to improve... arm around the shoulder works too.
9. He couldnt fire blanks
10. No idea