There are consistencies though that we can look at. The OP's article is very rosy in it's take on managerial appointments. For instance, he states that Ramos was hot shit when he was hired. Well, I certainly wasn't convinced of that at the time. One quick look at his record showed that he'd had a totally mediocre managerial career for years until his cup[ wins at Sevilla. What's the commonality? Well....
Ramos - hired after short term success, no other notable achievements, asked to work with a DOF
AVB - hired based on short term success at Porto, no other notable achievements, asked to work with DOF
Sherwood - cheat interim appointment hired despite no notable achievements, asked to work with DOF
Poch - hired based on short term success at Southampton, no other notable achievements beyond moving Espanyol up a few league positions, asked to work with a DOF. So far, Poch achieving less then his two predecessors
There's a running theme here isn't there?
Contrast this to Redknapp who was allowed to work under a less continental system and given more direct involvement in team affairs and signings - best ever finishes. When Redknapp was sacked I took the view that we should only get rid if a better manager was going to come in and push further. I don't consider AVB and upgrade, more of a lateral move....and so far neither Sherweasel or Poch have proved to be an improvement on AVB. We'll see what Poch can deliver over the coming months, but I think there needs to be questions over Levy's managerial and transfer philosophies as so far none of the "progression" according to his preferred model have been runaway successes.
While Levy might well be praised for the financial stability, the training ground and the stadium, when it finally materialises, his footballing decisions have been highly debatable. I don't think it's a case of people putting a spin on it. I think there are legitimate mistakes that have been made, and owning to certain repetitions, the question of how much Levy learns from past errors must be asked.
Perhaps. I would argue though, that each situation should be considered in turn, and we need to ask a question if there really is a pattern in this case. In terms of hiring new managers, we are not alone in giving the reigns to relatively unproven candidates. A certain Jose Mourinho took over at Chelsea after a year at Porto. Guardiola was internally promoted at Barcelona. It is not only us that have done this, and results have actually shown that there is merit in giving young managers a chance.
In each case at Spurs, we should look at the reasons for hiring, and the firing (if the case, of the previous candidate). With Jol, we had a popular manager who seemed to be doing things correctly. We don't know what the internal situation was like, but at the time, it didn't seem like there was much need for a change. Ramos seemed to be hired on the same logic I described earlier. I think the problem was an inability to see the difference between process and results. That is, Ramos had achieved good results at Sevilla, but we didn't look at the process he'd used to achieve them, and if that could be transferred to Spurs. Levy was definitely incorrect in that it couldn't be transferred (if there actually was a solid process involved) and we paid a price.
Redknapp was clearly the right choice at the right time to fix things, but it wasn't all roses. He was tactically limited, didn't make effective use of the full squad, and was not someone who could be afforded all of the control he wanted. Redknapp wouldn't work with a DoF, but clearly cannot be allowed to make his own choices, as he will overspend on players with very little return on the pitch. It's pretty telling that the key members of the Redknapp squads were all players found before he got there, or by Levy.
We all know why he was fired, and really, I cannot disagree. He dropped the ball mightily at a key moment, and then behaved in a really distasteful way. Not the kind of person I'd want around.
AVB was a gamble, but the logic behind it was based on some pretty clear ideas. We wanted a young manager to be with us for several years, building the team and organization around a single philosophy. He talked a good game, and it seemed like the issue at Chelsea was more a player power problem than anything else.
Unfortunately, Gareth Bale hid the reality that AVB's rhetoric and game plans didn't match up, which became clear last year. It also showed the serious folly in attempting to radically change playing style while retaining mostly the same squad. The players we had were never going to work in a Bielsista system, and we're seeing that repeated again this year. That being said, I don't think AVB was sacked by Levy. One thing that's been clear is that when Daniel takes action, he does it quickly, and thoroughly. Nothing is rushed before the plan is in place. AVB's exit though, did not fit that model. There was no replacement ready. There was no plan. Instead there was Tim Sherwood. I think AVB jumped after facing some hard questions, and THFC were left with little choice.
Now we're in an odd place. We have a disorganized franken-squad rife with factions and varying levels of commitment and a new manager with a very particular style of play who relies on the team buying into the ideas and following the plan with full commitment on the pitch.
I think Daniel Levy could be accused of making several mistakes, but I am not sure they are the same ones he usually gets accused of by the English media. I think the failure to ensure consistency between the squad's abilities and the manager's preferred style of play is the main reason we are in the position we're in. That's partly down to recruiting the wrong players, and partly the wrong managers (AVB was emphatically the wrong choice after Redknapp). I think he's been really poor at publicly articulating what the plans of the club were, and this is the main point of disconnect between the club and the fans. And I think he's failed to invest effectively in all the needed backroom infrastructure. We needed much better scouting and recruiting efforts to be able to maximize our funds, given our limitations. Without that, we failed to effectively replace or upgrade key positions, and that's left us with the current mess.
Thankfully, I think we're addressing those issues, but it'll be at least 2 years before we really see the result of that.
At least that's where I see things.
ochbye:
