Next Manager/Head Coach Discussion | Page 11 | Vital Football

Next Manager/Head Coach Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnGee said:
I'll tell you why I never want to see the Cowleys back. The season when they left after a few games, after stating they were happy here and not looking to move, but suddenly the Angel Gabriel made them see the light (or was it just the salary on offer), the recruitment had been exceptionally poor, from memory all we had added was about four midfielders? And they left us at short notice with quite a poor squad (0-6 Oxford Utd just after). They then managed to keep Huddersfield up, but allegedly put ridiculous demands on recruitment and getting rid of existing players, and the chairman said, quite rightly, no thank you. Since then, what have they added to that impressive cv. Not a lot, I believe.
They were great first time around, an organised pair in a disorganised club, but get them back in, with respect, no thank you.....
Click to expand...
Disagree entirely. In 35 seasons of watching the Imps what the Cowleys achieved was incredible. And I didn't begrudge them a move to a far higher paid position. Gutted as I was. To suggest they were just an organised pair is condescending and disrespectful to their achievements. With respect I'd have them back yesterday.
 
nlondonimp said:
Gets complicated. You mention mounting effective attacks after gaining possession. I wonder, who was coaching attacking patterns once we had the ball?
because no doubt to me we were constantly losing possession quickly in attacking areas, putting pressure back onto the out of possession work.
Click to expand...

I understand that, it is all inter-linked which is why I wouldn't argue we're good at x and bad at y. You can also say we're so set up to function out of possession that when we get possession we've got very few options to help us retain it. I'm just not buying the 'Shaw coaches us out of possession which is our strength so that's good' argument.
 
Do we think Shaw might be in the running?

He is clearly highly thought of at the club, having survived the MA and MK eras. Plus there is talk (not sure how solid) of bringing in an experienced person temporarily to work alongside him.

I'm not a huge fan of promotion from within, but if he wins on Saturday and on Tuesday, might he be in the running?
 
The only reason why I won’t want the cowleys back is because IF the second time happened and wasn’t as great as the first and they left us in a worse position then we were when they arrived, I wouldn’t want it tarnishing all the great work they already have done.
 
My view on the Cowleys.

They are super intelligent and hard working.
They make sure all the low hanging fruit is harvested. So fitness key and buy the best players available. Know your opposition inside out. They were operating at near L1 level in the NL and L2. Great credit to them. Brilliant for us.

...but to get out of L1 you still need to buy the best players (JG job) make them fit (sports science) know your opposition (analysis dept)
and have a brilliant coach and motivator.

Are the Cowleys "just" super intelligent, hard working etc

or are they also high end coaches/motivators?

I think of all their qualities that coaching may be their least strong suit.

However....the last 2 coaches were good coaches but I don't think good man managers.

Danny Cowley as old fashioned manager with a top coaching assistant (ie not Nicky) I could see working....but I don't think it would happen.
 
woodworkimp said:
The only reason why I won’t want the cowleys back is because IF the second time happened and wasn’t as great as the first and they left us in a worse position then we were when they arrived, I wouldn’t want it tarnishing all the great work they already have done.
Click to expand...
Life is all about taking risks. I have taken many 'calculated' risks. This involves due diligence and hard work. The pay off can be great. Without risk we would get nowhere.
 
I'm not as 100% sure on the Cowley's as others are. Certainly not against them, though.

In one respect, it's worth getting them back just for the atmosphere at the first home game back! On the other hand, the unknown of a new manager is quite exciting (and nerve racking)...initially!

We'd be a logical next step down for them i.e. still in L1 and at a Club that's in that clutch of Club's below your Charlton, Portsmouth, Bolton, Derby types.

I wouldn't say that their style of play, which was by no means as direct as the opposition made out, is quite as footballing as we're likely to be looking for. Would they accept the model and the limitations of said model i.e. it requires more patience, which wasn't in their nature first time round (maybe after their last two moves, they've realised they can't move as fast as they thought they could and understand the need to build something a bit slower) and we can't just go out and sign the best players in L1 like we could in the NL and L2.

If we could have MA's attacking coaching (when it worked), MK's organisation and DC's man management, supporter connection and general aura, then we'd be onto a winner!
 
The Tilson appointment highlights how it is always a gamble whoever gets the job. I think if most of us were honest when he was first appointed it looked like a good appointment. Obviously history will show what a disaster it was.

It does disturb me that somebody appointed has coach has so many others working as coaches beneath him. Next we will have somebody coaching them in how to tie there boot laces up! But hey I am old fashioned and a lot of the way football is coached these days is bullshit to me .

I personally think Bradley would be a good appointment but have no qualms if Danny and Nicky come back. I know the club won't rush into an appointment, but the sooner the better for me.
 
To me the question of Cowleys vs others comes down to the board's two main aims - promotion to the Championship and developing young players to sell at a profit.

Pertsonally I think the Cowleys would be the best bet to get us promoted in the next two years. That would bring with it significant increased income from TV money share, although higher salaries too of course.

They may not be the best choice to develope young players, but getting promotion itself increases the sellable value of the players.

A top up-and-coming coach brought in because he has a track record of developing players may not have the man-management and organisation ability to get us promotion, but may add value to our younger players.

So which provides the best financial return for the club? I would suggest promotion - and to me the Cowleys are the safest bet in that direction.

The last two managers have been brought in more with development in mind. With the new investors, now is the time for a manager who's main purpose is to get us into the championship. If he/they can do that, player value will take care of itself.
 
I would be happy if the Cowleys came back but my personal preference for managers is similar to my personal preference (and the club's model) for players. I like the young up and coming gamble; obviously with the necessary due diligence done to reduce the risk as far as possible. If it pays off, we again have a saleable asset.
 
It’s the expectation of what one manager has done somewhere meaning he will automatically do the same with us.

I remember when we appointed Peter Jackson it was the hope he would do the same with us as he did with Huddersfield.

Same with Tilson the expectation of what was done at Southend happening with us.
 
Skip155 said:
I understand that, it is all inter-linked which is why I wouldn't argue we're good at x and bad at y. You can also say we're so set up to function out of possession that when we get possession we've got very few options to help us retain it. I'm just not buying the 'Shaw coaches us out of possession which is our strength so that's good' argument.
Click to expand...
My reading: out of possession is decent, but could obviously benefit from a few tweaks a new fella wants to put in. Always wanting to improve. shaw was responsible for this, the board have kept shaw. No major overhaul.

in possession is nowhere near that level of satisfaction. and the board are requiring complete 180 change to more in possession. Complete rethink - who was responsible for this coaching?

New ideas required on attacking set pieces. Imo this is obvious - who was responsible for this coaching?
New ideas required on defensive set pieces. Imo this is also obvious - who was responsible for this coaching?
hopefully some agreement on this, to fans watching the games.
 
I think we're on the same page. I'm not arguing against your points regarding attacking which could very clearly be better and MK was overall responsible for everything that happens on the pitch.

My point has already been made about out of possession 'strength' potentially impacting in possession effectiveness. We don't play American Football - you can't change everything in and out of possession, there has to be an effective way to transition between the 2 and how you set up out of possession is part of that.

Anyway good luck to Shaw in the interim - I have no doubt he's a great coach.
 
No one seems to have considered whether or not the Cowleys would wish to return.

They left Lincoln intending to take on the world and rise to the top. Returning little more than four years later may be anathema to them, tantamount to an acceptance that they have failed in that ambition.

Or they may see it as an opportunity to rebuild a reputation tarnished by two sackings and some genuine supporter vitriol.

Is it a case of how realistic they can be?
 
Was it Liverpool who had (have?) a throw-in coach? That might be an idea as we seem to have developed that as our main attacking option even when Adelakun is off the field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.