Mourinho said recently that the best setup he had was at Inter where he only dealt with five scouts but he knew them very well and trusted them totally. Not the same as having someone foisted on you who thinks he knows everything and must be obeyed.
From what I've seen this season Steve Gallen is miles ahead in scouting & recruiting than anyone we've had since RD has been in charge. Before Driesen says anymore I wonder if anyone could ask him how many of the players he "recommended" to RD he has actually seen play in person.
If you have the traditional English set, appoint a manager, have a 3/5 year plan and back him. 100% he should have the final say.
If you have head coach, under a director of football, like Southampton did. The head coach should have influence but not the final say.
Look at Chelsea and Man United, their squads are full of players signed by previous managers that aren't suitable for the way the current incumbent wants to play.
In fact our squad has 4 or 5 diffrent managers players, gobby rated Marshall a lot higher than LB does, for example. Last seasons squad even had a Phil Parkinson signing in it.
(revised) I know how many people here hate "data" but the data is pretty strong that transfers are not a significant determiner of success. Almost all the research shows that wage bill and club success go in almost perfect lock step over time. But net transfer spend and finish are not that well correlated. Examples this year alone include Fulham, ManU and in the other direction, Spurs, who spend nothing and might well win the Champions League. Since managers make the majority of transfer choices at most clubs, this would seem to indicate they are not that great at it.
I know how many people here hate "data" but the data is pretty strong that managers are poor at transfers. Almost all the research shows that wage bill and club success go in almost perfect lock step over time. But net transfer spend and finish are not that well correlated. Examples this year alone include Fulham, ManU and in the other direction, Spurs, who spend nothing and might well win the Champions League.
Also, not many people 'hate data' they simply understand that data.alone is not enough to build a squad as so much information can't be put into numbers.
Here are a few links that discuss the and some of the studies, themselves. Essentially they mostly point in the same direction.... net transfer spend is not an effective way to win. One study shows that sacking your manager mid-season results in an average 3 position change in the table and might be more effective long-term than spending lots of money in the transfer window.
Admittedly I've only skimmed those links as I'm busy this morning, but they seem to highlight the isssue with transfers, not with managers deciding on transfers. One example of huge financial failure was Bale, which would not have been a managers choice, as I'm pretty sure that's not how Real operate.
You also can't look at this things simply from a financial position, yes, Utd lost a lot of money on Yorke but only a buffoon would describe his time at Utd as a failure, he was a key pay of their success.
Admittedly I've only skimmed those links as I'm busy this morning, but they seem to highlight the isssue with transfers, not with managers deciding on transfers.
You are correct. I need to revise that. I find that most clubs do allow their manager to make the transfer decisions and thus one follows the other. But obviously that is not always true.
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.
Different study, basically the same outcome. It's all about the wages. Managers are not as important over the long-term as fans like to think. ManC and Chelsea have won multiple titles with different managers. It's the players that matter more, not the managers.
Comments
From what I've seen this season Steve Gallen is miles ahead in scouting & recruiting than anyone we've had since RD has been in charge. Before Driesen says anymore I wonder if anyone could ask him how many of the players he "recommended" to RD he has actually seen play in person.
It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Can not see it being long till it’s removed
If you have the traditional English set, appoint a manager, have a 3/5 year plan and back him. 100% he should have the final say.
If you have head coach, under a director of football, like Southampton did. The head coach should have influence but not the final say.
Look at Chelsea and Man United, their squads are full of players signed by previous managers that aren't suitable for the way the current incumbent wants to play.
In fact our squad has 4 or 5 diffrent managers players, gobby rated Marshall a lot higher than LB does, for example. Last seasons squad even had a Phil Parkinson signing in it.
#ShouldKnowBetter
Complete moron.
I would like to see his CV.
So mouthy. It's rediculous
We are actually doing well despite the absolute shit fest foisted upon us these past few years, of which he is part.
Can you please just f*ck off and support a club in Belgium. Preferably a local club to yourself....that you should actually be closely connected to.
You never even knew of or heard about Charlton before uncle Roland bought us in 5+ years ago in 2014.
You are a moron.
Or, preferably, get yourself a Charlton Life account so I can take you to a keyboard warrior early grave.
You have absolutely nothing to do with any success we may or may not achieve....at any given point.
"This club ❤️"...that you have apparently fallen in love with.... thinks you are
A Prick
Also, not many people 'hate data' they simply understand that data.alone is not enough to build a squad as so much information can't be put into numbers.
You also can't look at this things simply from a financial position, yes, Utd lost a lot of money on Yorke but only a buffoon would describe his time at Utd as a failure, he was a key pay of their success.