Seven ways I disagree with Warburton's footballing philosophy

[calscot 0]

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on football management, but I've been around enough to learn a bit about life and a bit about football, through experience, books and media - at least enough to make some opinions. My perceived wisdom may be bollocks to some but I have developed these opinions with effort of thought and there is a certain amount of logic or sense behind them that I think deserves the respect of debating the actual points I've made rather than offhand or insulting dismissal. I am fully open to people after pretty much understanding where I'm coming from, disagreeing due to having a different viewpoint, or because they have an insight that I haven't thought of. If I'm unclear, ambiguous or used inappropriate words, including typos and brain farts, I'm happy to explain further in different words. I ask people to at least try to receive what I actually mean rather than merely what they want to argue against, even if I have not communicated it well.

 

Warburton has been lauded since his arrival for his footballing philosophy; however, after experiencing about a season and a half of it, I am finding much of it disagrees with my own philosophies on success, footballing and otherwise.

 

For the sake of debate, here are seven instances of how I perceive Warburton's philosophies that I disagree with and think are contributory to what I believe is our current underachievement:

 

1. Using a specific formula for success

 

While following a formula can and often does get you reasonably good results it applies in isolation to competition – so if you follow well known rules in a business, you probably have a good chance of making a reasonable profit.

 

However, if you want to be the best in the business, then doing what all other rivals are doing competently won’t rise you above them, you’ll probably just be rubbing shoulders as much of a muchness.

 

To be the best you have to do something different from the pack, something better, you have to adapt and tweak and do what others aren’t. The top of the game are the ones writing the newest, latest rule books, not the ones following them.

 

Not only that you have to constantly be looking to change and stay ahead of the game, as once you write the book, everyone starts to catch up.

 

 

2. Doing plan A better

 

This is fallacy which is usually mentioned near the beginning of any management or self-help book. Trying harder at doing the same thing that never works isn’t going to make it work. You have to acknowledge when something isn’t working and change something.

 

The hardest thing is to know what to change but you can’t improve without changing something. It’s very arrogant and self-destructive to assume that you are right when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Perserverence is great – look at Edison with the light bulb – but every time he failed he tried something different.

 

There are plenty of wise quotes which tell you it’s not logical to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

 

 

3. Sticking to one style

 

I think this is the most obvious one – in a competition if you do the same thing you become predictable and game theory suggests that your rivals will work out a way to counteract your tactics.

 

This is not about a simplistic choice of either always playing the ball on the ground or always hitting it long. If you do either of these, you will eventually be easy to play against.

 

It’s about developing a much wider repertoire and using the right tactic when it’s appropriate and when you need to be creative, using all your repertoire to be unpredictable and therefore difficult to counter.

 

A simple example from boxing is that you need to block punches to your face and your torso – if you stick to protecting your face, your opponent can pummel your torso and vice versa – therefore you need to be able to do both and change to the appropriate one when attacked.

 

In attack, you need to be able to attack both the face and the torso, if you only attack the face then your opponent just needs to keep his guard there, and vice versa – so you need to use both in an unpredictable way to create an opportunity to score a hit.

 

Obviously only having two tactics in attack and defence is still not enough and it’s about have a large gamut of tactics and skills to choose from, and have the ability to use all of them in an instant, without having to think too much about it.

 

I also don't believe that concentrating on any particular style, automatically results in wins. I think you have to concentrate on what wins, and that becomes your style - even if it is not the most aesthetic. A good example is the modern tennis players who no longer use the very exciting serve and volley style.

 

 

4. Not adapting to how the game is unfolding

 

This is related to being immovable on tactics and the formulaic attitude and extends to the substitutions at 60 minutes that seem predestined. There is many a genius of a manager who set up his team and tactics, saw it not working, thought of a solution and implemented it.

 

This is by either changing the tactics, the formation, swapping positions, assigning a man marker or making inspired substitutions etc. These managers earn their crust by being able to change a game around. Apart from the training ground, it’s the biggest difference between reality and fantasy (or computer game) football.

 

When you boil it down, the genius of management is to see what’s not working and being able to change to what does. There is another manager trying to do what you are doing and it’s up to you to outsmart him or otherwise better him.

 

 

5. Not doing research on, or adapting to other teams

 

It seems common sense that in most things in life there is rarely a time when one solution fits all. It’s like a joiner only using a hammer. It seems obvious that for every situation we use a variety of tools and adapt our strategy to the job in hand.

 

I doubt there is a profession where this is not true and is where skill and experience pay dividends. For me in football it is more-so, and the best managers study the opposition, assess their weaknesses and strengths and adapt the team and tactics accordingly. They like nothing better than getting one over their opposing manager. Ferguson took this to extremes by also using his famous mind games.

 

It’s very naïve for a top manager to think that his tactics created in isolation will just work everywhere, and seems more suited to something Sunday league where there is not the professionalism to check out the other teams, nor the likes of handy video footage.

 

 

6. Rejecting criticism out of hand

 

Criticism is feedback and can be useful to question and see yourself without your own filters that come from your ego. It needs to be acknowledged and objectively challenged – then rejected or accepted. If accepted then it needs to be acted upon or be a lesson learned.

 

Rejecting all criticism out of hand means that you are only looking at things through your own filters and are missing the bigger picture. You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge and this kind of attitude leads to you make the same mistakes over and over.

 

Even when you think criticism is slightly invalid, it’s often best to show don’t tell. If it’s outrageous then it might be good to point that out, but you can’t say it’s all about opinions and then lambast someone for what is not an extreme one. If you think they are wrong in this kind of case, it’s best to prove it and take your satisfaction from that.

 

There’s nothing worse than attacking your critics and then falling on your face. All this does is create a bunker mentality where you are more concerned about attacking critics than fixing what they are criticising.

 

 

7. Not playing youths

 

The manager has been previously lauded about his policies on youth development and yet in a season and a half, not one academy player has had a run of games in the team. The only teenagers to play have been loan players which is arguably counter-productive to our own development as it limits the chances of our own teenagers – as you can’t have too many in a team challenging for the title.

 

He may be developing these loan players but that is no use whatsoever to developing our own team of the future. Maybe he has a plan and the current crop he inherited are not good enough, but he doesn’t make us privy to that and so all we can see is that he is the worst manager in our history for giving youth a chance.

 

I’m completely against having too many youths in the team unless they are ready and exceptional and prefer a couple at most, but we’re not even seeing one in more than a blue moon – not even when the second tier title is sown up and the first team are playing abysmally, or in an easy League Cup group, or the Pertrofac Cup, or as a sub when we’re well ahead.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think you have highlighted a number of areas where the manager needs to improve.

 

I'll comment on three for now:

 

2. Doing plan A better

 

This is fallacy which is usually mentioned near the beginning of any management or self-help book. Trying harder at doing the same thing that never works isn’t going to make it work. You have to acknowledge when something isn’t working and change something.

 

The hardest thing is to know what to change but you can’t improve without changing something. It’s very arrogant and self-destructive to assume that you are right when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Perserverence is great – look at Edison with the light bulb – but every time he failed he tried something different.

 

There are plenty of wise quotes which tell you it’s not logical to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

 

Most people agree that this is Warburton's biggest failing.

 

It's clear that Plan A isn't working and as I wrote elsewhere it doesn't matter if the players don't fit the plan or the plan doesn't fit the players; bottom line is it's broken and needs fixed.

 

Without Barton, Kranjcar or Rossiter, we just don't have anyone capable of making game changing passes from CMF; furthermore we are being outmanned and therefore overrun.

 

To overcome this obvious weakness we should consider 4-4-2, which would be much more difficult to breakthrough and gives greater potential to build an attack. However, since the one area we where seem to have an excess of players is in forward positions, we could also try 4-2-3-1, utilising solid players like Windass and Crooks perhaps as the defensive mid 2 and McKay, Forrester and Miller/Dodoo behind Garner. The point is that we need to try different tactics because ours aren't working.

 

When I read your

(3) Sticking to one style

 

I think this is the most obvious one – in a competition if you do the same thing you become predictable and game theory suggests that your rivals will work out a way to counteract your tactics.

 

This is not about a simplistic choice of either always playing the ball on the ground or always hitting it long. If you do either of these, you will eventually be easy to play against.

 

It’s about developing a much wider repertoire and using the right tactic when it’s appropriate and when you need to be creative, using all your repertoire to be unpredictable and therefore difficult to counter.

 

the sport that came to mind was tennis and the player, of course Andy Murray. I don't claim to know anything about tennis but so far as I can see and understand in any match at the top level you need to be able to change your tactics in line with the opponent's strengths and weaknesses. It's clear to me that Andy has done exactly what you say "developing a much wider repertoire and using the right tactic when it’s appropriate and when you need to be creative, using all your repertoire to be unpredictable and therefore difficult to counter."

 

We are totally predictable and that's a big part of the problem.

 

7. Not playing youths

 

The manager has been previously lauded about his policies on youth development and yet in a season and a half, not one academy player has had a run of games in the team. The only teenagers to play have been loan players which is arguably counter-productive to our own development as it limits the chances of our own teenagers – as you can’t have too many in a team challenging for the title.

 

I recall him saying something like "we need to keep open a path to the first team". Right now having lost Barton, Kranjcar and Rossiter, we are crying out for a CMF player. We have Jordan Thompson out on loan and Liam Burt in the ACADEMY U20s. Thompson looked the part when he got a few outings last season and by all accounts Burt is a star of the future; but we need some stars now. I also think we made a big mistake releasing Andy Murdoch who was at least as good as anything we have available at the moment. Ryan Hardie is a proven goalscorer albeit at a lower level, also out on loan when we are struggling to score goals.

 

I would like to see journalists challenging Warburton on some of these issues, especially tactics; instead of the usual, what's your assessment of that performance, Mark. which only brings out the stock answers to which others have alluded.

 

That's my contribution, hopefully others will take up the debate.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Disagrees with Warburton but backs super to the hilt.

 

You'd be as well entitling this I like being contrary.

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Plus about 5 of those reasons are the same and they aren't really true. We have changed it this year depending on opposition.

 

Did it last night. Played a youth to.

 

Didn't work.

Edited December 1, 2016 by the gunslinger

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Plus about 5 of those reasons are the same and they aren't really true. We have changed it this year depending on opposition.

 

Did it last night. Played a youth to.

 

Didn't work.

 

Which one of our academy youths played last night?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Ah semantics how fun

 

 

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

The manager identified Midfield as an area that needed strengthened.

 

Barton - out

Kranjcar - out

Rossiter - out

Windass - out

Crooks - just back

 

He has had no luck with signings this year.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Waltersgotstyle

[calscot 0]

Disagrees with Warburton but backs super to the hilt.

 

You'd be as well entitling this I like being contrary.

 

Once again, you only have to read the hundreds of post and thousands of words I've written on McCoist to see that I have never, ever backed him to the hilt. Many times I've even considered putting it in my signature. I've even emphasised that point hundreds of times. What part of "I think McCoist is not a good manager but the criticism of him is way over the top and much of it unjustified" can't people understand?

 

Once again, someone likes to be contrary to me by making up stuff I never said... Total bonkers.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

You got supers back. Don't be shy. Yesterday you had his back again.

 

 

 

 

[calscot 0]

Plus about 5 of those reasons are the same and they aren't really true. We have changed it this year depending on opposition.

 

Did it last night. Played a youth to.

 

Didn't work.

 

I agree they are related and alluded to that. But they are still distinct and I'm able to explain each one individually without much repetition.

 

I think saying we tried something once and it didn't work isn't a good point. Changing tactics requires coaching and practice, not a half-baked change in the middle of a match. But maybe you're just being contrary.

 

Who was the youth? I've checked the line up just in case I missed something but, nope...

 

Which player who joined as 18 or less, and that Warburton gave a first team debut to, played in the game?

 

Ah, I see you want to argue semantics. I can't really imagine a description of youth development that would apply to any of the players here. I think you're just being contrary.

Edited December 1, 2016 by calscot