Seven ways I disagree with Warburton's footballing philosophy

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

I would contend that your 1st 3 points are, in essence, the same thing cal. But perfectly valid. It is naïve to believe that YOUR (not you... Warburton) way is the only way for success. If you are Barcelona or Real Madrid and have the best players then you truly can take a "we will concentrate on us and ignore the opponents" mentality because you should have enough to get the desired result based on players available. However, not many really can do that and even then.... if you look at the recent Real Madrid v Atletico Madrid game you would see that Real changed their philosophy and "out-Atleti'd" Atletico. They recognized the dangers that Atletico would bring and effectively played them at their own game. This from one of, if not the, best teams on the planet. So Warburton is being naïve if he believes that one formula, doing Plan A better of sticking to one style (all, as I said, I believe to effectively be the same thing) can work for the players at his disposal. We don't have the personnel to let everyone worry about us - we have to be dynamic ourselves. So I completely agree.

 

#4 - Not adapting to how the game is unfolding. Yep, agreed here too. Many substitutions since he arrived have taken place at the same time of the game and you could pretty much work out pre-game what they would be. When the majority of fans are scratching their heads watching Kenny Miller have a stinker yet being kept on the pitch whilst the younger, faster, more potent Dodoo gets removed.... when we are down a goal or two - you can tell that there is no adaptation to the game plan.

 

#5 - Not doing research on or adapting to other teams - I think I dealt with that one in the RM vs AM statement. Every team is duty bound to do so, whether they have the best players or not. Interestingly though..... the one time he DID adapt to the other team he got absolutely blasted for it (against Celtic in the LC semi). People were complaining that he had reverted from the "Plan A better" to "adapted" philosophy. We cant have it both ways, which do we prefer ? For me.... I don't personally believe that the STYLE of football needs to change (i.e. short passing, high press, get the ball wide, get balls into the box - whatever the style may be) but changing formation CAN be done to counter opponents. Anyone who honestly thinks that you would do well playing a 4-3-3 where the front 3 is a striker and two wingers against a 4-5-1 where the 5 in midfield are all midfielders is bonkers. Playing 3 men in the centre of the pitch against 5 means you will be completely over-run. Not only that but it also means the opponents can afford to waste a midfielder to get forward and challenge the defenders looking to play out from the back.

 

#6 - This one I struggle with. I don't necessarily disagree with you - but the issue is whether or not he is dismissing it out of hand. He almost has a duty in public pressers to protect the players - I would be much more inclined to want to know what he is saying behind closed doors before believing he is dismissing it out of hand.

 

#7 - the sad reality with this one is that none of them are ready. Some will say that Hardie is ready, some will say Burt is ready - but we have no evidence of that being the case. And, yes, it is a bit of a circular reference - you wont know if they are ready till you try them. But I find it difficult to criticize the manager too much on this one because much of the blame for the lack of youths has to go to the Academy, and more specifically Sinclair. He made our Academy worthless. Thankfully Mulholland is looking for technically gifted players rather than big, physical bruiser types that Sinclair preferred. Thankfully Mulholland's driving ethos is development rather than winning whereas Sinclair was a "win at all costs" kind of guy. IMHO, we will start to see some very talented youngsters coming through in the next couple of years IF we can hang onto them. What Warburton HAS done is he has brought some of those youths over from the Academy to train with the 1st team including the young Billy Gilmour. You can blame Warburton for this one if you like - but there really aren't that many that are ready for the step up.

[calscot 0]

Anyone claiming super has managed mckay better than Warburton would have to be mad.

 

That's a very extreme statement that cannot possibly be backed up.

 

No-one is saying that McCoist even managed him well, but it is inconceivable that he does not get the credit for buying him and introducing him to the team. As he turned out to immediately be a good player, is hardly a black mark on his previous management - after all he was under the guidance of McCoist for years in his time of most crucial development - I can't see how Warburton can take much credit after a handful weeks of training compared to 34 first team games.

 

THAT would be mad.

 

Part of Warburton's development is to send players out on loan, and so you can't disparage Ally for that either. Maybe Ally was shit at managing him but that is pure speculation with contrary evidence.

 

Again this shows how Ally is demonised and how much of his criticism is unjustified. Not that I think he was any good, mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed he's proof that Warburton is far better than super.

 

That should be obvious to all.

[forlanssister 3,084]

The problem is that when comparing Warburton to McCoist, he doesn't come out too well these days. I thought he might come good, but he's turning out to be possibly slightly better than mediocre.

 

So as I said before, the worse you think McCoist is, the worse Warburton is. Ally had all the crap to deal with that Warburton didn't and yet you give the LATTER the free ride... I don't get it.

 

I will admit to being dubious about McCoist's extended gardening leave after regime change and the non-vote, but it and whether I like him or not, doesn't affect his track record - which result-wise, although it's difficult to compare properly, isn't significantly worse than Warburton's.

 

McCoist never even reached the heights of medicore.

 

Don't you ever get tired of pontificating with your "Me,me,me, I,I,I, you, you, you" shit? Last nights exchanges with Craig being a classic example. The rest of certainly f*&kin do.

 

As gunslinger alludes you most definitely are the trolls troll.

 

**awaits wrath of admin while someone goes clipeing like a whiny 2 year old**

[calscot 0]

As you agree with me in first ones, it's not surprising I agree with what you said.

 

I also agree that some are similar but to me they are still distinct. I'm trying to break it down into its components.

 

#6 - This one I struggle with. I don't necessarily disagree with you - but the issue is whether or not he is dismissing it out of hand. He almost has a duty in public pressers to protect the players - I would be much more inclined to want to know what he is saying behind closed doors before believing he is dismissing it out of hand.

 

Fair enough - we all have our opinions. I thought he went over the top on mild and valid criticism, after saying it's all about opinions, defended his own record in a spurious and cringe-worthy way, and then got stuffed by Hearts. Poor show. It was easy to just ignore. But that's just my view.

 

He can protect players without jumping down the throat of every critic and the player's response should be to show the critic is wrong by how he plays on the pitch. Funnily enough, the guy he was defending the most didn't get a start...

 

#7 - the sad reality with this one is that none of them are ready. Some will say that Hardie is ready, some will say Burt is ready - but we have no evidence of that being the case. And, yes, it is a bit of a circular reference - you wont know if they are ready till you try them. But I find it difficult to criticize the manager too much on this one because much of the blame for the lack of youths has to go to the Academy, and more specifically Sinclair. He made our Academy worthless. Thankfully Mulholland is looking for technically gifted players rather than big, physical bruiser types that Sinclair preferred. Thankfully Mulholland's driving ethos is development rather than winning whereas Sinclair was a "win at all costs" kind of guy. IMHO, we will start to see some very talented youngsters coming through in the next couple of years IF we can hang onto them. What Warburton HAS done is he has brought some of those youths over from the Academy to train with the 1st team including the young Billy Gilmour. You can blame Warburton for this one if you like - but there really aren't that many that are ready for the step up.

 

This is a scenario I'm willing to give some possibility to, and I've mentioned that above. However, no matter how bad Sinclair and his methods were, there's even recently been McKay and Lewis - and they are the most successful, like you say, you don't know till you try.

 

I don't think this excuses him for not trying the likes of Burt even for the last 10 minutes when we're 3-0 up (although I admit that doesn't happen much these days), or in the league part of the League Cup, and last season after we had already won the league. Maybe he was keeping the first team match fit for the final - but that obviously didn't work.

 

I can't see the harm, and I've been consistent in saying we should be blooding one to three players a season - which I've been derided for by some as too few. I see a lack of consistency from those who were saying we should be flooding the team with youngsters, as well as others who have attacked the likes of... let's choose Walter , for not giving youth enough of a chance.

Edited December 1, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

McCoist never even reached the heights of medicore.

 

Don't you ever get tired of pontificating with your "Me,me,me, I,I,I, you, you, you" shit? Last nights exchanges with Craig being a classic example. The rest of certainly f*&kin do.

 

As gunslinger alludes you most definitely are the trolls troll.

 

**awaits wrath of admin while someone goes clipeing like a whiny 2 year old**

 

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,^[3] often for the troll's amusement."

 

At the risk of repetition, some people just don't do irony.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Ah semantics how fun

 

It's not semantics, GS, the OP referred to our academy youth players, you said one was playing, which one?

 

The point is that we have signed some youth players on loan but we didn't have a youth on the pitch last night, loan or otherwise.

[craig 5,199]

I think McCoist is not a good manager but the criticism of him is way over the top and much of it unjustified

 

You didn't always think that way Cal, even when the evidence was in front of you.

 

I don't say that as a slight, because I defended Ally till it was impossible to continue to do so. The difference is that I admit it.

[rbr 1,254]

It's not semantics, GS, the OP referred to our academy youth players, you said one was playing, which one?

 

The point is that we have signed some youth players on loan but we didn't have a youth on the pitch last night, loan or otherwise.

Would you throw a youth player into a team that's struggling , away to Hearts , of course you wouldn't, most of our youths are far far far too young

 

 

[craig 5,199]

I refer you and some others to your posts and the definition given. YOU are the troll - you've come on made up and repeated a lie, just to spoil a thread you don't like. Trolls like you often call other people trolls to deflect their inadequacies when trolling. What trolls don't do, which I do, is painstakingly explain and logically debate all their opinions.

 

Trolls don't like people like me...

 

 

 

None of them are under 21. None of them were given a first team debut by Warburton.

 

Warburton definitely has shown different ideas about developing youth from most people - especially Ally's and Walter's critics. But like I said, maybe he thinks none are good enough - but unless he tells us that, we can only see who he plays.

 

What manager in their right mind would come out and say "the youths at this Club aren't good enough" ??

[BrahimHemdani 1]

PS All the players you mentioned have had a manager play give them their debut at a young age - McKay was 17 when McCoist played him and he was a regular at 18 (I think McCoist wasn't a good manager).

 

So if a manager like McCoist can do it with one of the players you actually mention, then what's Warburton's problem?

 

BTW Before anyone goes on about McCoist "having to play" youths, it's been mentioned several times, including today that he was given a load of money to spend by the board. So either he had to play them or he was backed by the board, they are contradictory (I think McCoist is not a good manager).

 

BTW McCoist debuted McKay while in the SPL.

 

I'll once again emphasise that I'm using McCoist as an example of not a good manager therefore a very low bar for Warburton to surpass.

 

If McCoist had given youth a chance when we were in the lower divisions, chances are we would be in much better shape now.