Author Topic: Baking in progress and preserving our values... what's the right club structure?  (Read 65850 times)

royhendo

  • Guest
Over the last few months, redwood32 has posted some extremely thought-provoking stuff on the subject of the club's organisational structure (mostly related to the Academy, Reserves, and first team set ups). the issues involved have been discussed on various threads over the length and breadth of RAWK, but several people have suggested that instead of going off topic on the youth/reserves thread, we create a thread to focus on the 'club structure' issue, debate the alternatives available to the club, and figure out what exactly we'd like to see, and the issues we'd like considered.

So here's the thread - an invite to post your thoughts on what we need in our club structure, because chances are that things will change at some point in the not-too-distant future, and with that change will come an opportunity to get things right for the long-term.

The question, then, is how should the various components of our club interact? Who should be responsible for what? What should each department or role reasonably expect from the other departments or roles?

---

To get things started, i'll post my own thoughts on the subject as best i can. it's hard to do without the full facts, and you get the feeling that, even within the club, people don't really understand how the club's processes work... however, there has been a fair amount written on the subject recently, so that'll do for a starting point, and maybe this thread will enlighten a few of us on how things are operating at the moment. Fingers crossed we can concentrate on the real problems, rather than their symptoms (and it's my honest opinion that long-term unresolved conflict is either the symptom of an underlying structural or procedural problem, the result of negligent stewardship, or some combination of all three). But in the interest of being all new-age and open-minded about things, let's blame a process, not a person, and think about how things could be improved to meet our long-term goals.

This passage from redwood32 is the one that stands out in my mind, as it pretty much sums up my views on the subject...

It's more of a structural issue for the club than an on the pitch problem, but it's just as important. Without a solid framework in place, we'll never have the continuity within the club. With each managerial change we'll potential have to start over again with the Academy and Reserves, which is obviously no way to work an efficient club.

Having debated this issue with redwood32, that line of reasoning really led me to modify my stance a little. Formerly I'd been firmly in the camp that says "if it's good enough for Man Utd and Arsenal, and it's good enough for LFC in the bootroom years, then let's give Rafa the authority he needs to make the whole process work end-to-end."

Now that's all well and good... but what redwood32 made me realise was that, even if he were to perform a flawless job and exceed all of the fans' expectations, politics at LFC right now are such that even then, his job would not be secure.

In an ideal world (Christians song pipes up in my head...) the manager would get unfettered backing and discretion to run the club as he saw fit. With a talented man at the helm, and firm guidelines on what he's free to do within the scope of his responsibility, we'd put ourselves in a strong position for the long-term. Get the manager on as long a contract as possible and make sure he has a clear stake in our success.

On reflection, it's clear that these things are a pipe dream given the current state of play behind the scenes at the club. In and ideal world, we'd have a clear vision that states how we're going to return to the very pinnacle of world football. It would be imposed from the top down, with the owners signing off on the projects needed to make it happen, and ensuring stable and sufficient funding is in place for those projects.

The person who represents all key stakeholders, the chief executive, would ensure this vision is clearly communicated and implemented in all areas of the club's operations. When inevitable conflict arose in the implementation of the vision in different areas of the club, the chief executive would intervene to ensure clear communication between all parties, mediating where needed to find workable compromises and process solutions... always acting in the best interest of the club... doing his best to make balanced decisions based on best practice.

The manager, meanwhile, would have unfettered discretion (just as the other creators of dynasties had) within clearly defined boundaries - namely footballing matters.

But all that's just plain fantasy. We all know there are a few flies in the ointment, so to speak. In fact, a few proper Brundleflies, to say the least. Dave Usher sums this up nicely.

Quote
Despite our healthy position in the table, the club is in an absolute mess behind the scenes. Pretty much everybody in senior positions is at odds with each other. Gillett and Hicks, Rafa and Parry, Parry and Hicks, Gillett and Rafa... this is common knowledge.

It's no big secret and it's been covered openly in every major news outlet, hasn't it? And not only that, they've played it out in public interviews and press conferences for us all to see with our own eyes. It's not the Liverpool way and so forth... but aside from all that, the tension and conflict never gets resolved to anyone's satisfaction. At the levels described in the quote, we're talking about our owners, board members, and senior management; however, the same chronic tension has existed for years at the operational levels of the club's management - for example, Academy staff have a hard time working with the staff at Melwood, and Melwood staff have a hard time working with staff at the Academy. For me, as I said above, these things are symtpomatic of structural 'dis-ease'. Things aren't set up right at the moment.

Even despite the fact our boardroom is about as stable as a marble in the deciding stages of a kerr-plunk match, it's clear our club structure isn't working particularly well.

So what are the options?

Personally I like redwood32's suggestion - the idea of someone respected coming in to liaise between the two parties - a new head of football development at youth level who puts the Academy staff under the right amount of pressure to perform, and agrees the standards (technical ability, physical power and fitness, and attitude - all three of those aspects are measurable in this day and age) as well as being experienced enough to know when someone's a player full stop. Kenny would be the dream choice for me, because he's capable of doing the diplomatic side. Rafa respects him, the Academy staff respect him, and he's strong enough to act in the best interests of the club and refrain from taking sides and get involved in powerbroking.

What do we need long-term? We need to make sure our local and global scouting is getting the right players in for the right value, so why do we currently have two independent scouting set-ups with different budgets and different guidelines on the kind of attributes we're looking for in our players?

Having recruited the players, we need to ensure we have an agreed syllabus in place for the coaching, to make sure the maturing players are developing the kind of things needed to cut it at the top level. The senior coaching staff should have an active input into this set-up and sign off on it each season, and everyone should be agreed as to the plan for the coming year before it starts - the plan should work towards the stated goals for the year, and the goals for the year should map to the long-term project, and the club's overall vision.

At the same time, clear assessment criteria and measurements should be put in place to objectively assess when a player's capable of making the next step, whatever that step may be. The process shouldn't be too rigid, as we're not talking about robots here, but there should be a set of minimum non-negotiable standards that, again, both departments have an input to, and both departments sign off on each season.

---

There's no real flow to this post - just a few ideas cobbled together to get the debate started - but here are some random thoughts and some reading on the subject that might get the grey matter going a little...

Dave Usher's article in issue 65 of "The Liverpool Way" fanzine (for those of you who haven't seen it, it's available for purchase here: http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/shop/product_info.php?products_id=231&osCsid=f21bc480b6b2ae1e7aa9ecd605359963 ).

I personally think we should look at success stories in other countries and in other sports - for me the British Cycling set up is the best example right now and I recommend the book "Heroes, Villains and Velodromes" for starters, because it tells you a lot about how they fucked the structure up a few times before they got it right, and put the right staff in place (most prominently Liverpool's own Chris Boardman) with spectacular results.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heroes-Villains-Velodromes-Britains-Revolution/dp/000726531X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228516962&sr=8-1

Here's last week's piece from the Echo where Peter Robinson gave his views on the Academy project, and explained some of the thinking behind the decisions taken at the time the Academy was set up.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/11/27/ex-liverpool-chief-peter-robinson-s-verdict-on-anfield-academy-100252-22350574/

Then the related Tony Barrett piece in the Echo:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/11/28/figures-paint-worrying-picture-of-liverpool-s-kirkby-academy-100252-22361007/


Last but not least, here's an overview article from World Soccer on the subject: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=225239.msg5038785#msg5038785

And here's a transcript of the article...

---

December 2008

Technical Difficulties
Gavin Hamilton and Nick Bidwell

Tottenham's appointment of Harry Redknapp marks a return to the traditional English style of football manager. But at most European clubs, the technical director remains a central figure. Gavin Hamilton and Nick Bidwell report.


Technical directors, directors of football, sporting directors: call them what you will. They have been getting a bad press in England recently.

All the major managerial changes so far this season - at Tottenham, Portsmouth, Newcastle and West Ham - were triggered by a breakdown in relations between the managers and their respective technical and sporting directors. The continental system, so it has been argued, cannot work in England, where managers need complete control.

Alan Curbishley walked out on West Ham, angry at the influence of sporting director Gianluca Nani, the italian brought in by the club's new Icelandic owners. The sale of George McCartney to Sunderland proved the final straw for Curbishley, who complained "I was no longer in complete control of transfers."

It was a similar story at Newcastle, where relations between Kevin Keegan and director of football Dennis Wise deteriorated rapidly, culminating in Keegan's departure shortly after the sale, against the manager's wishes, of James Milner to Aston Villa.

At Spurs, Damien Commoli, the Frenchman axed as the club's sporting director along with coach Juande Ramos, was portrayed as the fall guy in their poor start to the season. The arrival from Portsmouth of Harry Redknapp, a man with a history of clashes with technical directors at his old club and Southampton, marked the end of shared managerial structure at White Hart Lane.

Traditional style
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy, the man who had persevered wtih the technical director model even when Frank Arnesen jumped ship for Chelsea in 2005, acknowledged that Redknapp's appointment marked a return to a more conventional way of running the club. "Now is the right time for us to move back to a more traditional style of football management at our club," Levy said. "We don't need a sporting director because clearly Harry Redknapp knows his way around the transfer market."

Although there are many examples of successful technical directors throughout the English football pyramid - John Rudge at Stoke, Nicky Hammond at Reading, Lennie Lawrence at Bristol Rovers, Dario Gradi at Crewe - the traditional English manager is back in vogue.

Redknapp was quick to assert: "The chairman will do the deals, but I'll pick the players. I wouldn't let anyone else buy me players."

Critics of the technical director system - and there are none more vociferous than redknapp, who found himself working with Sir Clive Woodward at Southampton and Avram Grant at Portsmouth - cite the examples of Mr. Ferguson and Arsene Wenger as proof that they have the upper hand.

The shadow of Ferguson and Wenger hangs heavy over the English game. The two most successful and long-standing managers in the Premier League are also the most powerful. Ferguson is famously the first person to arrive at United's Carrington training ground every morning; Wenger is known to take an almost obsessional interest in the activities of the unrivalled global scouting network that he has built up over the past decade at Arsenal.

In essence, both Ferguson and Wenger perform the role of technical director themselves, leaving day-to-day coaching to their assistants. Until last year Wenger also had David Dein to negotiate transfers.

But what will happen to United and Arsenal when, eventually, Ferguson and Wenger step down?

Historically, technical directors developed on the continent to provide continuity, especially at clubs where the president and board of directors were elected by the fans, and so subject to upheaval on a regular basis.

Traditionally, continental coaches came and went, often on 12 or 24-month contracts. It was left to technical directors to handle youth development, scouting and recruitment, often of the next coach.

When Levy introduced the technical director model to Spurs, he was attempting to introduce a different approach rather than a specific structure. These is no such thing as a typical continental club structure, though the classic relationship is a triangle involving the coach, technical director and president. The devil is in the detail, with the relationships varying from club to club.

Former players
Technical directors are not a homogeneous breed. Just as every club is different, so is every technical director. Most are former players, but some have different backgrounds. Juventus sports director Alessio Secco was originally the Turin club's press officer before taking on more responsibility during the calciopoli scandal and eventually ending up as the club director with overall responsibility for the transfer market.

In Germany, the classic model is a technical director with lots of autonomy in terms of general footballing set-up, academy structure, and player recruitment. Club presidents tend to stick largely to financial matters. Klaus Allofs (Werder Bremen), Andreas Muller (Schalke), Dietmar Beiersdorfer (Hamburg) and Horst Heldt (Stuttgart) are all good examples of effective technical directors in the Bundesliga.

German technical directors operate more as team players than in the past, when 'Little Napoleons' such as Schalke's Rudi Assauer and Bremen's Willi Lernke ruled the roost. Now, they bend over backwards to be collegiate.

Same wavelength
Obviously it works best when the coach and sports director are on the same wavelength. That's the case with Heldt and Armin Veh at Stuttgart and with Allofs and Thomas Schaaf at Bremen. When the coach and director are at loggerheads - such as Thomas Doll and Michael Zorc at Dortmund - the result can be disastrous.

"The head coach already has a massive workload dealing with the professionals: the preparatory work on the training ground, picking the team, choosing the right tactics, talking to the press," explains Stuttgart's Heldt.

"My job as team manager is to assist him in any way possible, to do my best to ensure he has the best possible squad, geared for success on the pitch.

"For the most part my brief is to bring in the players we think will make us stronger, to talk to those guys we feel should move on and basically be a front man for the club, on hand to deal with the media.

"I'd call it contacts and communication. I'd like to think I can offer 16 years experience as a professional footballer, familiarity with Stuttgart - who I used to play for - and a lot of contacts in the game both home and abroad. I'm not there to leave my shadow over the coach or to pose as some sort of threat to his future - just to help him along the way.

"The important thing is to respect your coach, to share a sporting philosophy. He has his responsibilities, I have mine. But we have the same goal for the club."

It's a similar situation in Holland where the technical director assumes responsibility for the youth department, scouting and transfers. He is expected to meet, as far as possible, the technical needs of his head coach, to relieve him of the administrative burden.

Danny Blind and Marco Van Basten seem on the same page at Ajax. The word is that PSV technical director Stan Valckx and new coach Huub Stevens are not.

In addition to the technical role, technical directors sometimes assume a more political role as a buffer for criticism of the president, especially at clubs where the president is elected by the fans or where he plays an active role in player recruitment. Here, they tend to exercise less influence. Marco Branca is an example of this at Internazionale, where Massimo Moratti pulls the strings. Across town at Milan, Ariedo Braida is the sporting director but vice-president Adriano Galliani and organising director Umberto Gandini play a much more important role in transfer dealings. Generally, Italian coaches tend to accept whatever raw material they are given by directors.

In Spain, Real Madrid's sporting director Pedrag Mijatovic tends to follow the lead of president Ramon Calderon, though he does not get on with coach Bernd Schuster. At Barcelona, coach Pep Guardiola and technical director Tkixi Beguiristain have a certain input but it is president Juan Laporta and finance director Ferran Soriano who identify transfer targets and negotiate.

Generally, it is at the smaller clubs where technical directors have real freedom to operate.

Sevilla's Monchi, Villareal's Jose Manuel Llaneza, Pantaleo Corvino at Fiorentina, Udinese's Pietro Leonardini, and Pierpaolo Marino of Napoli are among the best in the business.

In contrast in France, the technical director system is being disbanded. Club presidents are increasingly hands on and the omnipotent technical directors of the 1970s and 1980s, such as Pierre Garronaire at Saint-Ettiene and Robert Budzinski at Nantes, are in retreat. The directeurs sportifs used to be a one-man band. Now their power base has been split up, with separate heads of recruitment, youth development, communication, and marketing.

At champions Lyon, all dealings in the transfer market are the personal fiefdom of president Jean-Michel Aulas, aided by his special advisor Bernard Lacombe. Remy Garde is theoretically their head of recruitment and coach Claude Puel was promised a greater say in the incomings and outgoings when appointed last summer. But it's still Aulas calling the shots.

Paris Saint-Germain have no technical director. Instead they have a 'recruitment council' made up of Alain Roche and Eric Pecout, who consult with coach Paul Le Guen then advise president Charles Villeneuve.

At Marseille, technical director Jose Anigo is not thought to be particularly influential, well behind chairman Pape Diouf and forceful coach Eric Gerets, who likes to get his own way.

No job for life
The situation is also changing in Germany, where technical directors can no longer rely on a job for life.

"I'm not sure a technical director is someone to provide a club with continuity," says Stuttgart's Heldt. "That may be the case with Uli Hoeness at Bayern, but football is a results-driven business and these days, if results are not forthcoming, a director of sport is just as likely as a coach to be made the scapegoat."

Increasingly, responsibilities are being divided up. "Im not concerned with the nuts and bolts of budgets and sponsors," admits Heldt. "We have many qualified experts in those fields. With us, everything is very clearly structured. We have a two-headed board with president Erwin Staudt and finance chief Ulrich Ruf. I am responsible for the sports side alongside chief scout Herbert Briem and sport manager Jochen Schneider, who's the man for contracts."

Other clubs are moving in the opposite direction, adopting an English style structure. This summer, Felix Magath took over as Wolfsburg's coach, chief executive, and technical director. "It's a wide-ranging and demanding remit but one I'm perfectly competent to carry out," he insists.

"Having one man in charge of the sporting set-up can work as long as that person knows exactly what he's doing. I'm pleased to have sole responsibility.

"It's the ultimate in motivation. If things go badly, there will be no-one else to blame. The buck has to start and finish with me. It's my philosophy on the line, my decision-making. I choose the players I want and working witin the confines of the budget I have, I set out to bring them in. It's effective in the sense that you choose a clear direction to go in. You are not bogged down by endless discussions."

However, the system is not set in stone, Magath concedes. "When I was first approached by Wolfsburg, they wanted me as their director of sport, but as I couldn't see a coach I really wanted at that time, I took on the job. In the near future, if we succeed in turning Wolfsburg into a club of real European quality, I will step aside from one or two of my roles. In essence I see myself as a coach."

And Magath the diplomat is quick to pay tribute to his colleagues. "Am I all-powerful heere? I don't think so. I have a good team around me, people who make their own important contribution. No way can I do everything on my own. For example, my management assistant Pablo Thiam is a big help. He knows the pro environment, speaks more languages than me, and is very intelligent."

Last summer, new Monaco president Jerome de Bontin sacked chief executive Marc Keller and director of sport Jean-Luc Ettori.

De Bontin's intention was to beef up the role of coach Ricardo, who now goes by the official title of general manager.

"The management of this club was not cohesive enough," said De Bontin. "A new structure made up of myself, Ricardo and is assistant Jean Petit - who spent most of his career here - is much more rational. We work together closely, especially in transfer dealings.

"There is a common vision, a unity of purpose which we may have lacked in the past. The hierarchy at the club is clearly established. I believe the three of us represent a good mix of coaching knowledge, commercial know-how and innovation. Monaco has not been delivering results-wise in recent years and a change had to occur.

"I want to be an omnipotent president, interested in all areas of the club, but there has to be sound delegation too, with good people working in the administrative, marketing, communication, technical and medical sectors. Football is big business these days. Specialists are a must, provided they apply themselves to a common goal. Ricardo is more than intelligent enough to identify the players he wants and work to sign them. He is bright and adaptable and it is right that he has a lot of scope in this area. We are always open to new ideas. For example, I'd like to have a technical advisor on board, a former Monaco player who can bring his knowledge and feel for the club to the question of recruitment."

Stength of personality
Ultimately, it comes down to strength of personality. Louis Van Gaal dominated Ajax in the 1990s as an English-type manager. Matt Busby became Manchester United general manager in 1969 when he stepped down as manager, but his continued presence at the club created enormous problems.

"Anything can work in football as long as the responsibilities are clear and accepted by everybody," says Wenger.

Perhaps it is as much a question of semantics as anything else. Historically, English clubs have always had directors of football. They were called chief scouts. But the cahnging nature of the global game has changed that.

"The irony," Levy admitted, "is that if we had called the sporting director by a different name, chief scout or chief exectutive, we would not have had the negativity about it."

In the current economic climate, few clubs can afford to pay off staff in the manner of Tottenham's disposal of Commoli, Ramos, et al. Youth development will become increasingly important and the technical director role is likely to remain for some time. The arrival of more and more foreign owners in England is likely to mean more technical directors not fewer as new owners are unlikely to want to defer to an all-powerful manager.

The recent upheaval at Spurs prompted the English media to argue that a "continental" management system cannot work in England.

But as Levy says: "It wasn't about scrapping the structure, it was about finding the right individual. If we had brought in a different type of manager, a foreign coach for instance, maybe the structure would have stayed.

"It might yet return."
« Last Edit: December 5, 2008, 10:43:12 pm by royhendo »


Offline shelovesyou

  • andyouknow youshouldbe glad OOOOOOH!!!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,251
  • Yes
Cracking post , thank you
the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am

Offline Manila Vanilla

  • aka Spud Balls!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,482
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • Baile Family Website
Yes, good post. Almost too much to reply to!

One thing that struck me when Abramovich arrived at Chelsea was that he took this structural approach to the club. Most incoming owner / presidents  made a few big name signings (your Figos, Zidanes...) and considered the job done. It was unheard of for someone to poach a Chief Executive and a Sporting Director. It was a business-like approach where responsibilities were clearly communicated.
Things only really went wrong when Abramovich decided to stick his oar in and pick up Shevchenko, against the Manager's wishes.

royhendo

  • Guest
it's funny you mention that mate because I almost posted the two recent articles on arnesen and the Chelsea scouting set-up's recent 're-evaluations'... will try and post them tomorrow.

I'm hoping JP-65 can pitch in as the debate develops because he is about as good as it gets on this subject

Offline gomez

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,595
Really good read that.

royhendo

  • Guest
one key thing from the cycling set up is the ways they encouraged a culture to get the athletes doing what was best for them naturally. they don't want to take drugs... they're keen to speak to the team psychiatrist and nobody thinks that's weird - just another way to get a competitive edge... it's all down to structure and culture

Offline incredibleL4ever

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,627
Firstly there is not one answer, only opinions.  If there was one answer to the best structure a club can have, then all club would adopt it and there would not be a need for this topic!

The truth is is depends on the history and culture of the club and on the individuals involved. 

Liverpool have a long proud history which is very important in taking the club forward.  This history and culture reflects on how the club behaves off the pitch and how it treats people.  The Liverpool Way was always to go about our business, quietly, steadily and with dignity.  It encompassed the concept of building from within, as well as adding in outside talent to keep things fresh.

In relation to the topic on hand, the team management structure and the relationship between the youth, reserve and first teams, it is clear that the changes to football in England generally is having an impact.  The availability of players from all over the World to our team limits the opportunities for the reserves to break into the first team. The buying in of young talent into the reserves is similarly limiting the opportunites for youth team players.

It might be a controvertial viewpoint, but it seems to me that the youth team and reserve team do not really serve the needs of Liverpool Football Club.  The youngest first team regular who has come through our development structure in Stevie G and he is 28. 
These teams are developing into more of a contribution by the club towards the improvement of footballers generally and may in part make a financial contribution by developing players that can be sold on.  It may well be that these efforts to develop young players, whether they end up at Liverpool or elsewhere, is a necessary part of being in the football family.  But it seems clear that the vast majority of first team players will be bought in rather than "home grown".

If you accept the above as the reality then it makes sense that the youth team in particular should concentrate mainly on the development of local talent.  Each club should have the objective of bringing on the young players from their general area.  This goes back to the community based clubs of the past.  When the players are ending their third year the scouts  can have a look at them pretty much like they would look at any young player anywhere in the world, to decide if they want to offer them a professional contract. There would perhaps be a slight bias towards our own youths where someone of equal potential was available elsewhere.

On the reserve team side I really have a problem.  For me the primary objective of the ressies should be to get players ready for the first team.  Right now I dont see that as being the case.  There seems to be a group of fringe first teamers who are somewhere between the first team and the reserves.  These include the likes of Degen, Ngog, Pennant, Lucas, Cavaleiri.  With these guys in position, there is little opportunity for the reserves to break through.  I am not suggesting that we dont need these guys, I am suggesting that we have too many in the reserves.  Those named above should be playing regularly with the reserves to keep them match fit.  This is important that they are ready, but it also bridges the gap between the first team and the reserves.  If follows logically from this that the Reserves come generally under the first team manager, but with an assistant taking the day to day stuff.  Also the Reserves would be located at Melwood.

Finally, to the management.  Personally I like the idea of a "Technical Director".  If I were a club owner I would obviously support the manager, but, if things are not going right I would value having another footballing opinion.  The key is whether the manager and the technical director can work together and that is mainly down to personailities.  It is not in the traditions of English football to have this position and therefore managers dont accept it.  Rafa does not like it because of his experience at Valencia.  However if can work if the two people see themselves as a team, rather than rivals.  I really dont see Rafa accepting anyone alongside him on the footballing side. 

Offline Degs

  • sy's midnight runners.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,444
In regards to sporting directors/technical directors/directors of football there is no yes or no answer, but ultimately I end up siding with the "English" view of the totalitarian manager.

When Rafa left Valencia he left a team that had just won the double of the UEFA Cup and La Liga (for the second time). Although he inherited a good side from Hector Cuper it was the inability to stamp his own authority on the side that he felt was holding him back, his falling out with Garcia Pitarch (the technical director) meant he felt he HAD to leave as without complete control of the side they were doomed to fail.
Pitarch saw a side that had just won the double and saw relatively little that needed changing, and so when Rafa wanted a striker they gave him a left-back, or as Rafa put it "I asked for a table and they bought me a lampshade".

To deny a man with the genius tactical mind of Rafa Benitez what he wanted in regards to how he wanted to develop the team must have been infuriating.  So he went the complete opposite, to a place where he knew he could control everything.  To the place that he could bring the Rafalution with him as the dictator.  Chopping off the head of the likes of Steve Heighway along the way he's now moulding the team from the bottom up in the way that only Shanks before him has. The kids are taught the Rafa way, the reserves are taught in the Rafa way and the first team is taught the Rafa way.

The technical director can be a good tool to have, especially for inexperienced managers like Zola at West Ham, but ultimately the best footballing minds belong to the totalitarians.  With everything in their power they can take clubs from relative obscurity (Shankly when we were in the second division, Ferguson when they were mid-bottom table, Wenger when Arsenal were boring and easy to beat) and turn them into "bastions of invincibility".
Can you imagine if Shankly wouldn't have been able to change our training facilities and methods or sign Saint John, if Ferguson's team of kids would have been out of his hands, or if Wenger wasn't allowed to sign Pires, Ljunberg, Vieira, Henry (and then sell them on for shitloads)?

It might work on the continent but more times than not the sporting director is a sword hanging over the managers head while keeping his hands tied behind his back.  Look at Schuster at Madrid - he's got the wolves howling at the door because when there is a Sporting Director in place the manager's position is easily interchangeable.  There isn't the bottom-up overhaul needed simply just a change of letter's on the managers trackie.  It shows that they're called "coach" and not "manager". 

For my money if you get the right man and he's got the power to implement his methods you'll go far.  It all comes down to picking the man for the job.

royhendo

  • Guest
Now... apparently (source Dave Usher again) Rafa agreed to a clause in his initial contract stating he would have no control over the Academy - something Parry insisted on. Piet Hamberg is Parry's hire - Rafa didn't recruit him - and the rumours are that he isn't working well with the Academy coaches...

So the kids are sadly not schooled in the Rafa way, and he doesn't have a say on who's recruited, how they're developed, or who develops them. Parry's son is an Academy coach. Ultimately Parry assesses the Academy staff's performance and the Melwood staff have no input to the coaching curriculum.

The only say Rafa does have is the decision whether to allow Academy players to join the senior squads at Melwood, which naturally leads to the kind of tension and conflict described above.   

royhendo

  • Guest
P.S. the focus when this problem's discussed is usually on the individuals involved, either accusing one side or the other of wrongdoing, or appealing for them to work together... but that's treating the symptom rather than the cause - the cause is (for me at least) the way the whole thing's structured. Of course you can also question the many and varied motives of Rick Parry, whose involvement in footballing matters would sicken most managers. Look at Mourinho and Arnesen at Chelsea - and Arnesen was qualified to do the job! Parry, bless him, isn't.

I don't think the intermediary role would work with anyone - just someone with Kenny's peculiar mix of qualities and most importantly, selflessness and humility.

Ideally we'd follow the totalitarian route, but with no guarantee of the manager having his contract extended, that would involve us playing snakes and ladders with the lower levels of the club. 

Offline SMD

  • Shit streamer. Can't be found by drive man.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,014
See, this is something that shouldn't be an issue in theory. The reason we were so successful was that while we gave the manager influence over everything (Vic Gill's comment about Shankly interacting with the reserves come to mind), when the manager left his successor was of the same ilk.

Just like we sign players and coaches to fit the system, so too should the manager. Liverpool shouldn't just look at performance and experience - the incumbent's personality and style should also be considered. I don't get the impression that happened when we hired the likes of Souness, Houllier and to some extent Rafa. Rafa especially was lauded for creating championship winning sides on a budget and that seemed to be the focus of his appointment.

Rafa should be given full control of the youth system because Liverpool Football Club should be confident they can find a man who can continue what Rafa has 're-started', I guess. Given the state of our ownership situation and the current direction at the top, that's not something I'd be at all confident with. However, does anyone trust them to bring in a Technical Director or an Academy Director?

As bad as the situation is right now, I guess it could only be worse until we change hands.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

royhendo

  • Guest
this is true SMD... but the assumption (or hope) that underpins the thread is that at some stage soon we'll have an opportunity to voice our opinions on what we want our structure to promote, no?

if someone bought the club and had the resources and the commitment to rafa that both ferguson and wenger enjoyed in their first decade, then i'd feel comfortable handing over the reins... that's the issue - we don't have that unqualified commitment. 

Offline SMD

  • Shit streamer. Can't be found by drive man.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,014
The thing is that if you're saying that someone like Kenny comes in now to liase between Melwood and the Academy, what sort of message are you trying to send? That Rafa doesn't quite understand our roots? That the Academy's management (which, by extension means Parry) is out of touch?

I get what you're saying but when you've got egos rubbing together, I don't see how bringing someone in now would help.

If it was going to be done, it should've been in June 2004. Granted, this would mean anticipating this scenario and we hardly give the upper echelons credit for anticipating their own farts.

I'd love Kenny Dalglish back in some shape or form at Liverpool. But after 5 years at the club, a fantastic record in Europe and gradual improvement in the league, do you really want to tell Rafael Benitez that he needs 'guidance'?

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with the Academy lies in the complete incapability of the management of the club to have any sort of long term plan or methodology. The fact that there is no liason when your goodself considers it necessary is a possible indicator of that. When Hughie McAuley left, it should've been a chance to bridge the gap between the youth teams and the squad - at the moment, that doesn't seem to have happened. Regardless of any power struggles, when two bodies in a business or organisation aren't liasing and cause friction between each other, it should be the job of those higher up to resolve or mediate between them.

I have no confidence at all that our owners, directors or chief executive can do that, let alone have the desire to.
Therefore in my eyes, all an appointment in that direction would do is cause more pressure to fall on Rafa and possibly a finger of blame. We'd all love Kenny to come in and do things the Liverpool Way but if the owners pull more stunts, where does he come in? Does he side with Rafa or does he constitute a new third party? How would that split the players and the supporters?

It's a massive worry, when Rafa's job isn't as secure as it should be. I get by believing that he'll outlast the owners and Parry. If he leaves then I'm not sure any structure we could have in place would be enough to soften the blow - and that's both a compliment to the job he's done in the past few years as well as a damning indictment of the lack of forward planning at any level in the club outside of the first team squad's management.

The fact that we're top of the league is bittersweet - we're finally there but it's put the ownership saga on the backburner for a lot of people and that worries me.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

royhendo

  • Guest
sorry SMD, i thought i'd explained at the outset - the premise of the thread is that yes, we know that nothing's likely to change while parry's still CEO, but if things were to change, and we did get shot of these fucking parasites, how should we structure things to preserve our values, stimulate a culture of excellence in all areas, and get all areas working towards a common goal.

on top of that, the idea isn't to give rafa guidance - it's to make sure the academy listen to him, are accountable for their performance, that a clear interface is in place between the two areas, that scouting is managed on a coordinated basis at all levels based on agreed criteria... and the like.

I completely agree that if, say, Sheik Mohammed were to buy the club and back Rafa to the hilt to run his project from root to fruit for 20 more years, then Rafa should be given unfettered control at all levels. But if there's always going to be a material risk that Rafa won't be our manager in 2 or 3 years' time (which there is, regardless of how well things go - see the fucking contract nonsense that's going on), then what then? Should Rafa get full control if that's the case?

I'm not saying it's simple - just asking what the things are people want to see considered.

Offline SMD

  • Shit streamer. Can't be found by drive man.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,014
Ah, I see what you're saying now.

If that's the case then I'd love to see Kenny be given the kind of role where he'd groom future coaches and managers by selecting them for the Academy - starting with Gary McAllister, if he were interested. Give Rafa a production line of both players and staff.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

royhendo

  • Guest
yeah, that's pretty much my ideal situation - working in close collaboration under a plan governed at melwood, and with strong grass roots ties in the local area as well as the wider scouting activities beyond academy intake level.

Offline SMD

  • Shit streamer. Can't be found by drive man.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,014
What you waiting for then? Get cracking ;D
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

royhendo

  • Guest
;D

anyway, maybe to add a little to the debate, the British Cycling book is bloody fascinating on this subject. in a few years, they've managed to create an environment where the squad and coaching staff naturally set themselves targets to be the best in the world, where they're all dead set against the idea of doping (if you took drugs, you'd be an outcast), where they have a clinical psychiatrist as one of their four key management staff, and the squad think a member is showing weakness if they don't see the guy to get their 'mental MOT'...

all this from a starting point of financial scandals, in-fighting, jealousy and favouratism, and basic incompetence. it's amazing what clear vision and leadership leads to.

Offline SMD

  • Shit streamer. Can't be found by drive man.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,014
But importantly, no personal agenda. You have to have people man enough to say "we need to improve" and willing to strive for that.

Then you have possibilities, no?
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

royhendo

  • Guest
yup - people who strive for that as an end in itself - it's a rare quality isn't it? the thing is, at the root of it all that's what rafa offers, and it's his main motivation (more than money, more than anything really)... the scope to realise his life's work in what he sees as the perfect sporting project. it's a fucked up situation we have at the moment. there are far too few people with the approach you mention mate.

royhendo

  • Guest
here's a passage from the cycling book...

---

Brailsford's aim as performance director was to "build a team, a hand-picked team, of world experts, and give them responsibility. In any leading business now the guys at the top are similar to me," says Brailsford. You are leading a team of people with more expertise than you have. My job is to create a culture, an environment, in which they can excel, in which their expertise is fully embraced - and can be delivered."

Brailsford's motivation for wanting to find and employ someone like Peters is clear from something else he said: "My job is to create a culture of support for the riders. To really support them, so they can be the best they can be. I want the best support team in the world. Not just equal to the French but across all sports, across the world - the best. If people on my team - riders and staff - don't have that enthusiasm, that drive to be the best in the world... if that doesn't really get you excited and get you out of bed in the morning, then this is the wrong place for you."

Offline red_in_my_veins

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Maybe off topic but I don't think it is. Thanks to Macedonian Red for posting this in a different thread. This is off Guillem Ballague's blog and I think it's all about academy control
Quote

Question of control key to Benitez contract resolution

"I understand, from several of your comments, that quite a few of our Liverpool supporting readers are concerned about Rafa's contract negotiations with regard to something that was said by the coach on last week.

In spite of what may have came across as fairly pessimistic at the press conference on Friday, I can say , as someone who was there, that when Rafa said that there was no news, he did not mean that there had been no development but rather that he is unable to confirm that the contract is sorted.

I have the impression that things have moved on since I last wrote about it on the website and that one of the key issues at that time – the duration of the contract – has now been agreed along with the financial side of things.

Rafa Benitez’ representative, Manuel Garcia Quilon, has flown in to Liverpool in order to take part in negotiations, but this was arranged prior to the sudden news that the Liverpool coach has been rushed in to hospital. Consequently, there may be a delay for obvious reason, but a final agreement appears to be very close.

However, there are a number of unresolved issues relating to questions of who will have control of certain footballing matters at the club and to what extent they will be able to exercise that control without interference.

Hicks allowed the news that a deal was close to being agreed last week, but his co-owner has less of a clear idea as what extent he is willing to allow Benitez to control the footballing side of the business. Nevertheless, it is the intention of all parties involved in the discussions to come to an agreement, and when that is the case, a resolution can almost always be found to even the most complicated of negotiations."

http://www.guillembalague.com/rumores_desp.php?titulo=Question%20of%20control%20key%20to%20Benitez%20contract%20resolution&id=125

I can see the positives of limiting control to Rafa's. But if Parry and Rafa could agree on an Academy director responsible for hiring the Academy staff then it takes direct power from Parry whilst at the same time it limits the possibility of the club being full of spanish coaches leaving when (if) Rafa leaves.

But then I don't see the harm in the Adademy director having to co-operate (report into) Rafa on operational issues. Including training schedules and scouting/recruitment policies.

Having that level of control of control should keep Rafa happy and at the same time we'd have that security we're looking for.

Offline manifest

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,536

cheers again royhendo. please do post the chelsea/arnesen stuff when you have a mo.

when I see robbie keane struggling, as a shrink I am itching to get in there and help him past his current hurdle. it's nowhere else but in his head, right?  the cycling team reversed standard thinking on this by making it a weakness NOT to see the shrink .... the uk culture, last time I checked, still sees a step towards a shrink as an admission of weakness......



royhendo

  • Guest
aah - so you're a psychiatrist manifest?

have you seen the steve peters piece in the level 3 thread?

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=225239.msg5123951#msg5123951
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 10:04:12 pm by royhendo »

Offline Shaded Red

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 416

I completely agree that if, say, Sheik Mohammed were to buy the club and back Rafa to the hilt to run his project from root to fruit for 20 more years, then Rafa should be given unfettered control at all levels. But if there's always going to be a material risk that Rafa won't be our manager in 2 or 3 years' time (which there is, regardless of how well things go - see the fucking contract nonsense that's going on), then what then? Should Rafa get full control if that's the case?

I'm not saying it's simple - just asking what the things are people want to see considered.

I appreciate that you're concerned about the academy since Rafa long term future isn't secure. However, I'm not sure that not giving him full control makes things any worse. It's not as if the academy's a runaway success and it may not even be a problem of coaching/structure but a problem of location (i.e. see number of scouse players currently playing the PL and if they can get into our first team).

Should Rafa lose his job in 2-3 years, the priority would be to ensure first team success. The academy would still be important, but I believe if given full control, Rafa would be able to set the academy up for success, even if he were to leave. At the very least, he might have recruited talent for the academy the way he has brought in Nemeth, Pacheco et al. So that is hardly a disaster. I don't think he wants the academy to fail and would work towards it producing the players he needs in the first team - the way he did at Valencia.

Given your faith in Rafa and the belief that if new owners back him to the hilt and he stays 20 years, it shows that you also think Rafa would be able to make the academy a success. I do too. And I think with full control, it could make a massive difference even if it was only for 2-3 years - though I hope Rafa stays for far longer than that.

Offline redwood32

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,200
Roy, ManilaKop,
Brought the discussion about the reserves from the other thread into here...hope that is fine!

Results don't fuss me a great deal. The only negative associated with the current run of form is that it can affect the confidence of the young lads, but they've been playing long enough to know you go through patches. This is just a blip for one of the better reserve teams.

Roy, I wouldn't write off any of the lads just yet. Could make me look pretty stupid in a few years! The 11 from the Hull game are probably the cream of the reserves. Remember there are another 17 or so (I think there are 28 involved with the reserves?) scattered around Melwood. We also have 11 reserves away on loan this season, which brings us to a total of 39 players for the reserves only, not including the 3 over-age in the Academy. To put that into perspective, the Mancs have 28, Arsenal have 27. Those are totals. Manchester City, who are apart of two Reserve leagues have 22 players on their books.

Liverpool Reserves - 39 players
Manc Reserves - 28 players
Arsenal Reserves - 27 players
City Reserves - 22 players, and that's for 2 leagues

I believe those numbers are right, give or take a lad or two who might drift between levels (El Zhar and Rafael, from Manchester, come to mind). Anyhow, I think the reserve team numbers need to be cut. It's outrageous that we have let it balloon out, as we don't have any more resources than the 3 clubs I chose to highlight. We're spreading ourselves thin in my opinion, especially as we only compete in one league.

We don't need to follow the other clubs necessarily, that's not what I'm advocating. But we don't have any more resources for the reserves than the other clubs. So what makes us feel that we're able to adequately prepare 28+ at Melwood, whereas City have 18 training as reserves and far more games? The results (number of players making it into the firsts team) don't speak in our favour. Unless we put in more resources, provide more games and hire more coaches I can't see how our current system is viable.

As for the structure of Melwood and Kirkby, we should all know by now there are problems which need a bit of sorting. Supposedly Hamberg is gone as soon as his contract runs out, which means we're without a "technical director" for the Academy. We still have an Academy manager in John Owens, and managers for the u18s and u16s in McAuley and Shannon.

If we're going the route of having the Reserves as a bridge between the Academy and the first team, it needs to be that. Currently, from what I've heard and read, that bridge is quite hard to cross when going from the Academy to the Reserves. It could be that the lads just aren't up to scratch, or it could be the politics going on. There is an argument for both sides.

I'll get into my thoughts on the structure in another post shortly Roy. If Rafa is holding up on his contract because he wants total control of the system, I'm not sure how I feel about that. If Rafa is saying he'd like to make the appointment, ok. If he's saying he wants to be in control of it rather than making a hire, I'm not sure that will work.

I do believe that a working relationship between the Academy and Reserves is important, and that instead of having a "technical director" for the Academy, this role should include the Reserves as they are now. The Reserves are no longer first team members who have lost form, they're another form of youngster development. If we have a "technical director" for the Academy, in this age why not make it a "player development" director for the Academy and Reserves? Our Reserves mainly consist of youngsters bought from overseas anyhow. I've got two names I'd love to see take over the role, Roy Evans or Kenny Dalglish. Anyhow, more on this later.

Dave Usher's article came along at the right time, as I remember just before I read it I had started posting in the other thread about the structure and ideas behind the Academy set up. My thoughts are somewhat similar to a few of the questions he poses, although I try to be a bit less critical and don't know anywhere near as much as him!

Offline hassinator

  • RAWK Funk Soul Brother
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,878
  • oot and proud
    • good egg hq
i think the direct comparison actually needs to be with man utd and arsenal.  both clubs have benefitted massively from continuity at the top and as rafa has been here for four years and looks to sign a four year extension it seems to me that we should give him our total backing and let him run all aspects of the club.

we have clearly not produced anyone of top drawer quality through our academy since the owen/gerarrd/carragher generation so matter how much we hope for local lads to break through its currently not happening.

i understand we need continuity and while gary mac and kenny dalglish seem to be great options gary turned it down for the leeds job and i can't see kenny wanting to do it full time.

its also important to view the role from the managers point of view - would he view either of the above as a potential threat when things go wrong on the pitch for the first team?  dalglish has been mooted on here many times in that role in the past particularly when we had our sticky patch last season.

no i think we need to back the manager.  if we're giving him a long term extension then we need to back him in all his choices.  he clearly has a long term strategy - see your own wonderful level three thread roy - and i've seen enough from macia's signings to think we're going the right way whatever that tabloid sensationalist dave usher thinks.


Offline hassinator

  • RAWK Funk Soul Brother
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,878
  • oot and proud
    • good egg hq
.



hey redwood i think we need to view this as a transitional period.  rafa clearly wants control and as a result there appears to be a bottle neck between academy and reserves.

i'm also guessing rafa wants a lot of options to choose from as uefa rules dictate we have to include more homegrown players - i'm guessing also this is why anderson and hammil are out on loan as they are english and therefore don't need three years in our academy to count but i've never had total clarification on the nuance of this rule.

in terms of the reserves being the bridge to the first team for the academy didn't we just play three academy players against psv?

Offline redwood32

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,200
sorry SMD, i thought i'd explained at the outset - the premise of the thread is that yes, we know that nothing's likely to change while parry's still CEO, but if things were to change, and we did get shot of these fucking parasites, how should we structure things to preserve our values, stimulate a culture of excellence in all areas, and get all areas working towards a common goal.

on top of that, the idea isn't to give rafa guidance - it's to make sure the academy listen to him, are accountable for their performance, that a clear interface is in place between the two areas, that scouting is managed on a coordinated basis at all levels based on agreed criteria... and the like.

I completely agree that if, say, Sheik Mohammed were to buy the club and back Rafa to the hilt to run his project from root to fruit for 20 more years, then Rafa should be given unfettered control at all levels. But if there's always going to be a material risk that Rafa won't be our manager in 2 or 3 years' time (which there is, regardless of how well things go - see the fucking contract nonsense that's going on), then what then? Should Rafa get full control if that's the case?

I'm not saying it's simple - just asking what the things are people want to see considered.

This is why Barca and Madrid continually produce world class talent, because they have a system in place that doesn't change on the whim of another happy-trigger managerial firing. Barcelona have a Football Director and an Academy Director, and then Barcelona B and C have their own managers. When you have a system in place, the talent will hopefully keep coming through irrespective of what is happening with the first team. The manager could go and the system would be the same. The Mancs have a director of youth football and a director of the Academy, plus the usual Reserve team manager, etc.. We have a "technical director" for the Academy, and then a Reserve manager and a Academy manager. Both Barcelona and Manchester have people in charge of youth football who have direct relations to the club. Both have played for the club and been in the coaching ranks for many, many years. Piet Hamberg had no association with Liverpool before being hired. The role needs to be expanded to involve "youth football" and the Reserves if they continue to be managed as a breeding ground rather than a place for first team players out of form. That's what I mentioned above.

Perhaps Rafa wants to put in place a similar system, which I'd be entirely for. But it sounds like, perhaps because of the media misinterpreting (or I), that Rafa wants control and not necessarily to hire someone else to be in control. Of course, he could just want rid of Hamberg and Parry's system and then hire his very on director. No one knows for sure what Rafa means when he says he wants control. If Rafa wants to choose someone to take over the "youth football" director role to work under Rafa, I'm all for it. But I believe he should have past ties to the club so that we can be assured he'll stay on despite changes that may occur in the future. Youth development should be the backbone of the club, not changing with each new manager.

Funnily enough, when Manchester City brought in Mark Hughes this past summer, he brought along the staff of his choosing...but left the Academy system as is. Sam Cassell, who I believe is one of the best in the business, is still in charge of their Academy. Glyn Hodges, who came over with Hughes, took over as manager of the Reserves.

royhendo

  • Guest
redwood32 - brilliant to see you weigh in on here mate - as you know your thinking's the main reason for the thread :)

anyway, on the squad depth and reserve team members issue - i collated these last month - the idea being to remove duplicates between first team, reserve, and youth levels, as (for example) the wikipedia names listed include multiple players in two categories (academy and reserves, or reserves and first team, or reserves/first team and on loan)... hopefully this removes those duplicates. it still shows we're top heavy though.  will reply to your posts in a mo but thanks very much for taking the time dude.

---

overall squad numbers... not including spurs (will have to dig those numbers out...)

First team squad numbers
36 - Arsenal, Man Utd
35 - Liverpool
30 - Man City
27 - Chelsea
23 - Villa

Reserve players not listed in 1st team
21 - Villa
19 - Man City
18 - Liverpool
17 - Arsenal
13 - Chelsea
10 - Man Utd

Total loanees (1st team and reserves)
11 - Liverpool
10 - Arsenal
9 - Chelsea
6 - Man Utd
3 - Man City
2 - Aston Villa


Academy players not listed in reserves
27 - Aston Villa
25 - Man Utd
22 - Chelsea
19 - Liverpool
17 - Arsenal
? - Man City (details not listed)   


So - total player numbers for 1st team and reserves are as follows...

64 - Liverpool
63 - Arsenal
52 - Man Utd
52 - Man City
49 - Chelsea
46 - Aston Villa

Offline Shaded Red

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
i think the direct comparison actually needs to be with man utd and arsenal.  both clubs have benefitted massively from continuity at the top and as rafa has been here for four years and looks to sign a four year extension it seems to me that we should give him our total backing and let him run all aspects of the club.

we have clearly not produced anyone of top drawer quality through our academy since the owen/gerarrd/carragher generation so matter how much we hope for local lads to break through its currently not happening.

i understand we need continuity and while gary mac and kenny dalglish seem to be great options gary turned it down for the leeds job and i can't see kenny wanting to do it full time.

its also important to view the role from the managers point of view - would he view either of the above as a potential threat when things go wrong on the pitch for the first team?  dalglish has been mooted on here many times in that role in the past particularly when we had our sticky patch last season.

no i think we need to back the manager.  if we're giving him a long term extension then we need to back him in all his choices.  he clearly has a long term strategy - see your own wonderful level three thread roy - and i've seen enough from macia's signings to think we're going the right way whatever that tabloid sensationalist dave usher thinks.



I'm with you on this one

This is why Barca and Madrid continually produce world class talent, because they have a system in place that doesn't change on the whim of another happy-trigger managerial firing. Barcelona have a Football Director and an Academy Director, and then Barcelona B and C have their own managers. When you have a system in place, the talent will hopefully keep coming through irrespective of what is happening with the first team. The manager could go and the system would be the same. The Mancs have a director of youth football and a director of the Academy, plus the usual Reserve team manager, etc.. We have a "technical director" for the Academy, and then a Reserve manager and a Academy manager. Both Barcelona and Manchester have people in charge of youth football who have direct relations to the club. Both have played for the club and been in the coaching ranks for many, many years. Piet Hamberg had no association with Liverpool before being hired. The role needs to be expanded to involve "youth football" and the Reserves if they continue to be managed as a breeding ground rather than a place for first team players out of form. That's what I mentioned above.

Perhaps Rafa wants to put in place a similar system, which I'd be entirely for. But it sounds like, perhaps because of the media misinterpreting (or I), that Rafa wants control and not necessarily to hire someone else to be in control. Of course, he could just want rid of Hamberg and Parry's system and then hire his very on director. No one knows for sure what Rafa means when he says he wants control. If Rafa wants to choose someone to take over the "youth football" director role to work under Rafa, I'm all for it. But I believe he should have past ties to the club so that we can be assured he'll stay on despite changes that may occur in the future. Youth development should be the backbone of the club, not changing with each new manager.

Funnily enough, when Manchester City brought in Mark Hughes this past summer, he brought along the staff of his choosing...but left the Academy system as is. Sam Cassell, who I believe is one of the best in the business, is still in charge of their Academy. Glyn Hodges, who came over with Hughes, took over as manager of the Reserves.

I think it's not easy to attribute the success of Barca/Madrid solely to the system of the club. There could be plently of other factors - such as the fact that their B and C teams play competively in the lower leagues (thereby making separate managers necessary). Spain as a whole has also been at the forefront of youth football for years, with Nando's cohort fulfilling the potential they exhibited when young. They have also lost a fair number of players - such as Fabregas. Don't get me wrong, i think they're doing a lot right at youth level, but i'm just not sure its entirely down to just the club structure.

Another way to look at your suggestion is that - our academy has been run pretty much separate from the first team/reserves setup for years. There is continuity, but the talent seems to have dried up. So, in the way that Barca/Madrid produces good players for their first team, we may continue to produce players not qute good enough for the first team.


royhendo

  • Guest
actually, having read the posts, i've nothing to say in reply - redwood's view is the reasonable view for me, and it takes the useful stuff from the TLW debate and ignores the less useful stuff. i think we both agree the issues are symptomatic of structural 'dis-ease', and that the right changes would get things working.

the compromise view would be rafa being given authority to hire, based on accepted criteria (i'd agree the connection to the club would be ideal, and for me the coaching curriculum is the key here as we need to have a clear idea from top-to-foot of the kind of values and football the club stands for.)

Offline manifest

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,536

aah - so you're a psychiatrist psychotherapist manifest?

have you seen the steve peters piece in the level 3 thread?

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=225239.msg5123951#msg5123951

a tasty read roy, thanks. broadly speaking, the description of the sports psychologist is very accurate.....theirs is a superficial skill of some value, but cannot solve problems because of a mechanised view of who and what a human is.

you ask at the end, could liverpool use someone like this? which of us couldn't?

as I was reading the piece and he breaks down how he reframed chris hoy's perception moment to moment, in my mind I was watching robbie keane miss that chance from 7 yards out where the ball ran in slow motion off the edge of his boot .... get peters in, if not, I'm available.
I particularly enjoyed this:

Brailsford's motivation for wanting to find and employ someone like Peters is clear from something else he said: "My job is to create a culture of support for the riders. To really support them, so they can be the best they can be. I want the best supported team in the world."

I think that this is an excellent description of the goal of a psychotherapist/psychiatrist, regardless of the client. It is also one of the primary functions of a football manager. You can almost hear these words coming out of Wengers mouth......though interestingly, arsenal of the top four would be my first port of call for some serious shrinkage.....starting with wenger who looks to me ( it's all guesses ) to have real difficulty with his mental/emotional relationship when his team loses. because he struggles with losses, the whole team suffers and suddenly he's standing on the beach again trying to stop the incoming tide ( sea=emotions ). being french doesn't help.

Forgive me for repeating this :

it could almost be a supporters charter:

"My job is to create a culture of support for the players. To really support them, so they can be the best they can be. I want the best supported team in the world."

if this was better understood, we would have given robbie keane, a man DYING for our approval, a proper and respectful chant instead of this he's not keano bollocks. if we gave him some serious love, he'd relax and score goals. like yossi when he first got here, he seems to me to be a man who needs the approval of others to feel okay about himself. Once he has it, he's away.
but of course, its for robbie to heal, not for us.......though if we chose to treat him as a hero imo he'd very quickly be it. We must give him a positive chant, not a negative one. I always thought that kewell was cursed by his chant, which musically implied a minor key rather than a major key.....a fucking disaster as a supportive mechanism.

I appear to have confirmed that shrinks will always go wildly off topic.


 

Offline KingKolo

  • usernamechangefullcirclejerk
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,648
Incredible post mate, and not the first by any stretch.
Do you have a blog? Or do you contribute to any blogs/fanzines/magazines?

Seriously, your input is one of the shining highlights of this forum, really interesting stuff.

Sadly, my tired eyes are not up to reading through all the subsequent debate, so I'm really sorry if the following questions are already old hat.

Academy staff have a hard time working with the staff at Melwood, and Melwood staff have a hard time working with staff at the Academy.
I'm curious, what is the source of this info?
I've heard it said elsewhere, but I'm puzzled, because I thought the struggles in terms of communications and working relations would end with Heighway's departure and Hamberg's arrival.
When you say the Melwood Staff and Academy staff don't get on, do you mean Benitez and Hamberg?
We currently have two independent scouting set-ups with different budgets and different guidelines on the kind of attributes we're looking for in our players?
Sorry, can you expand on this?
Do you mean a scouting set-up for the Academy and a separate one for the 1st team?

Offline 4pool

  • Mr. ( last name) Minister Of Truth - 1984 to 1984. The first to do a Moyesed. A pore grammarist.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 52,759
  • Liverpool: European Capital of Football 2005/2006
Royhendo.

You're one long winded so and so. lol

Interesting postulate though.

Evolution or Revolution with respect to how to run a club and the staff.

What we end up having is a political turf battle in the end it seems.

Personally, i would hand it all over to Rafa. If we are to compete and bring through graduates of the Academy then they need to play and understand Rafa's philosophy.

If we have a set up where the Academy is set to just work as best it can to bring through talent, how can that talent be effective if the player can't adapt to the Senior squad.

As an example, what if we have a striker who scores loads of goals because the matches he plays in he is bigger than most of the lads he's up against. So they just lump the ball in with crosses or long balls from the defense. This works tactically because of the player. But does that do the striker much good because the senior team doesn't play that style. Does it do the other outfield players any good if they are taught to get it to the striker as that produces wins? So the midfielders do not become as a dept at passing and the tactical nous of how to unlock defenses.

If we are to put our club faith in Rafa, then we should let him have the authority over the Academy. If any "director" of football is to come in and liaise between Rafa and the Academy, then that director should report to Rafa not a board member. If not, then that creates more political instability. We need less of that.


The drawback as you've pointed out is what happens when Rafa leaves. My responces would be nothing. There should be no detrimental effect unless the next manager wants to revert to Wimbledon type football. The seemless transition of footballers coming through the Academy who learn to pass and move and be able to be utilized in multiple postions is what the top managers want. So Rafa's replacement won't need to make any institutional changes at all. He may have different scouts targeting different reserve team players but the style of player expected out of the Academy won't change drastically. The Academy won't be torn down to be rebuilt because we change managers. If anything the next manager will have less to do and be more appreciative.

However, it's a moot point. Rafa's going nowhere. :P
Either we are a club of supporters or become a club of customers.

royhendo

  • Guest
I appear to have confirmed that shrinks will always go wildly off topic.

well, if so, is it any consolation to say that's maybe the most interesting post i've ever read on RAWK?

will PM you manifest. if i was hannibal lecter, i'd want to eat your brain. you'd taste so intelligent... (only winding you up - i'm not any kind of 'path as far as i know)

;D

royhendo

  • Guest
cheers for the kind words geoff (and in answer, i used to write for a living and kind of still do, but not as a journo per se). RAWK's the finest site i've ever found on the web and it's choc full of people with the kind of expertise in all fields you'd never get free access to anywhere else (with the possible exception of fool.com/.co.uk). on this thread, there's a chance we'll get serious input from people with serious big hitting business careers, consummate professionals in the accounting and legal fields, and so forth, and for me all i want to do on the site is tap into that 'groupthink', because the quality here is incredible, and not just on the subject of football.

I'm curious, what is the source of this info?

I've heard it said elsewhere, but I'm puzzled, because I thought the struggles in terms of communications and working relations would end with Heighway's departure and Hamberg's arrival.

mostly the recent TLW piece on the academy and reserves, but basically there's a raft of circumstantial evidence to back up the claims of 'structural dis-ease'. we know the situation at board level is either a house of cards with at least three wobbly jokers in the foundations (the jenga/kerr-plunk image works well here too - in fact i like the kerr-plunk one a lot - the first team and its long-term progress is balancing precariously on the top of a lattice that might or might not disappear, or at least cause it to topple, etc etc etc blah blah blah).

;D

as redwood32 mentioned, the allegation is that hamberg is a dead man walking in his current role, as he was a parry hire and a bad one at that. if that's the case it's been all rhetoric and no real progress.

Sorry, can you expand on this?
Do you mean a scouting set-up for the Academy and a separate one for the 1st team?

again, this is from the TLW piece, but yes - the Academy scouts with its own budget, and for example, bought in Adjarevic and Dalla Valle with its own cash, as well as many others. There have even been allegations that Parry was behind the pursuit of Aaron Ramsay in the summer.

meanwhile, Rafa etc have no input to the recruitment at lower levels, and it seems they don't have any input into selection and scouting criteria, or agree any aspect of the coaching curriculum. but that's not proven - it's based on speculation if i'm honest as nobody's written anything definitive on that issue.

but yes, there are separate scouting set-ups, and separate budgets from what i can gather mate.

royhendo

  • Guest
Royhendo.

You're one long winded so and so. lol

Interesting postulate though.

how did you know about the pustules?

;D

cheers for the response and yeah, i'm not the best for brevity, i must admit.

anyway, i'd agree that any 'middle man' should work in an enabling and diplomatic capacity, and again, we could do a lot worse than learning from the likes of british cycling in its appointments on this front. someone like gary mac (failing the idea of kenny) would be ideal for me if things don't work out for him at leeds. he's the ideal candidate for me on all fronts (leaving out the obvious emotional appeal).

but i do agree the reporting formalities are very important. the whole thing has to be transparent within the club and the goal has to be congruence in terms of the curriculum, the scouting criteria, the selection criteria, the goals of individuals and squads at each level, and finally assessment criteria, both for performance year-to-year and season-to-season, and as a 'rite of passage' from academy to full pro.

i also agree with SF on the subject of the Academy geographically separate from the senior set-up, but possibly we're too far gone on that front and we can't waste cash on a rethink. It does promote an 'ivory tower' mindset though, and we should be working to integrate the two set-ups from now on, whether it's by getting the senior guys down to coach the young lads on a regular basis, or getting the young lads up at melwood as an integral part of their development (on a rota type basis).

Offline manifest

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,536

 if i was hannibal lecter, i'd want to eat your brain.

;D

I'm right out of chianti

roy.......the chelsea/arnesen stuff?