Rousseau

Ooh! Sky Sports News are running it as breaking news.

The plans will already be in place. Anyone new won't be able to rip it up at the 11th hour.

I suspect the plans are all in place, but clearly someone else will need to take over negotiations, etc.

I'm more than willing to concede that we've not had the success with our DoF that we want, but to think of ripping up the model is ludicrous to me; it'll set our club back years.

Three years old, but still informative:

Football departments are too complex to be left to a manager. Every elite side in world football has one.

I'm strangely excited.

He's not moneyball. Brentford are moneyball.

It would give us wings.

Are you feeling alright?

Why did Klopp use a sitting midfield three to accommodate Robertson and Alexander-Arnold? As soon as he adds more attacking midfielders, more attackers it all falls apart.

The grass is always greener. I'd like to see more of a moneyball-, Red Bull-type appointment. That's just me, though. I suspect I'm in the minority.

There should be KPIs with which the board can hold the DoF to account. I still think any coach worth their salt should be able to get the best out of players at their disposal. If coaches need a perfect mix of players to get the basics done, they should not be here. It's up to the board and the DoF to work out the recruitment strategy. We can only judge decisions made, which is easy with hindsight. We must remember, though, that a 'DoF' does different things at different clubs, and they are responsible for a lot more than just recruitment.

The Leeds DoF has made a howler, there. I don't think the Forest guy did too bad in terms of singing all those players. They did need to sign a lot of players because 7-8 members of their Championship promotion team were loans, and none were made permanent, even if they were able to. The fact that he let that happen is the issue, for me.

They shouldn't be butting heads, though. They have to work together. If a coach doesn't want to work with a DoF they shouldn't be here. I know you're not saying so - and I don't believe MB is - but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a coach dictating recruitment strategy to the DoF or the board.

He must have done something right to be approached by a PL side.

It was a sitting midfield three of Kamara, Davis and Jack, who are all still here. (Aribo sometimes played there, but mainly further forward.) It doesn't matter who the players are, though. If you're depending on a player in form to be a solution, it's not a proper solution. The solution for SG was using a sitting midfield three; the players were mostly irrelevant.

I get your point, but SG had a solution (three sitting midfielders) with these exact players. We conceded as few as 13 goals in one season.

Or another Dundee Utd signing Steven Thompson. Ooft.

I agree with your point, but I would argue they are dated.

The game's professional now, though.

It can be that simple, but often managers tweak their team's structure to compensate. Klopp uses counter-pressing, so when they lose the ball they are set up to get the ball back ASAP so they don't get caught. Pep dropped the #6 between the CBs to cover with Barcelona. Now he inverts one FB and keeps the other back to make a situational back-three. Gerrard used three sitting midfielders - something Klopp does, or did, too. There are a lot of solutions.

We've had two somewhat mistaken 'in my day' takes from @compo and @Scott7, mainly because of a difference in terminology. The W-M (or, 3-2-5) formation is actually still in use: Man City use it, Arsenal use it, and - as much as it pains me - Celtic use it. The only difference being the labels applied to the player positions. Take Man City--on paper it's a 4-3-3, with the '4' comprised of two FBs and two CBs. On the pitch, they morph into a W-M, or 3-2-5: Grealish (LW) - Haaland (ST) - Mahrez (RW) DeBruyne (#8) - Silva (#8) Cancelo (LB) - Rodri (#6) Ake (CB) - Dias (CB) - Walker (RB) The RB stays to make a back-three, with the LB 'inverting' to make a double pivot - or, the old Half-backs. The old Full-backs would be Ake and Walker in this situation. But today they are just CBs. It came about because the old W-M was countered by a back-four, which then became ubiquitous. To counter the back-four, the 4-3-3 emerged. To counter a 4-3-3 ... it turns out the W-M works quite well. The other way that Full-backs are used today - which is still the most common - is actually as wingers; they would take on the Grealish and Mahrez positions, with the wingers coming inside to take up DeBruyne and Silva's positions. It's a different way of creating that front-five. In Tavernier's case, he plays as a winger; he is the furthest forward wide player, with Cantwell and Sakala playing narrower. To sum up: We still have the W-M, with Full-backs, Half-backs and five forwards, it's just that their positions have changed. Old Full-backs are just modern CBs. The old Half-backs are the modern double-pivot. The other way that Full-backs are used today are actually as wingers, which is where Tavernier plays. Stay tuned next week for another great episode of 'Well Ackchyually...'

Rangers with David Weir conceded 146 goals in his 5-years, or 29.2 goals-per-season. (He scored 4.) Rangers with Tavernier conceded 214 goals over 7-years, or 30.6 goals-per-season. (He scored 64.) Interestingly, Weir's sides never conceded fewer than 28, yet Tavernier's side has conceded fewer on three occasions (27, 19 and 13 in those years) - and that's a defensive Walter Smith side!

I'm not. @Bill I'm not so sure...