October 23, 2019, 09:57:10 AM

Author Topic: Should we sack Steve Walsh?  (Read 66763 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

October 02, 2017, 03:14:40 AM
Read 66763 times
Offline

Toddacelli


I disagree 100% with the people saying we don't need a position like this. Nobody good gives the manager complete control over footballing decisions anymore. Even clubs with unlimited spending power have realized how dumb it is to put recruitment and the hiring of backroom staff entirely in the hands of the manager. The do-it-all manager model is totally outdated and unless we want to fall even further behind the best clubs in England, there's no reason we should go back to it.

With that said, I'd be comfortable with the club giving Walsh the axe and starting over, this time with the director of football being hired before the manager. Maybe Koeman has made his job difficult but I don't see anything in him that's going to give us an edge over the clubs we want to compete with and the rumours of him having "baggage" are disturbing. We need more than an old-school English scout who's smashed a handful of transfers if we want to be competitive in England and in Europe.

Sounds very sensible.

My first problem with the 'Should we sack Walsh?' thread is this:

Does anybody know exactly what his remit is, what his targets are and what he is measured against?

My second problem is this:

Does anyone actually know if he is achieving his targets, under-performing, over-achieving or failing?

Basically at this stage I have not heard anything to say if he is doing a good job or a bad job so what would calls to sack him even be based on?

Knee-jerks.
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates


October 02, 2017, 03:20:00 AM
Reply #1
Offline

Toddacelli


I've got massive questions marks over the whole structure of the club at the moment

From boardroom to the Koeman/Walsh axis.

I'm kinda thinking it's been a massive mess since Moshiri come in tbh.

Not calling for his head or anything like that, but it's been a bit chaotic, hasn't it?


Not sure I agree.

I think there have been loads of positives - more than I even expected/hoped for in such a short space of time (transfer money/activity, Bramley Moore Dock, sponsorships), but they have all really been off the pitch.

I think it's on the pitch I agree with you. That's where it's been shit.

But I don't think he's the kind of person to tolerate poor results in any area of his business for long - especially the most high-profile area that most directly affects the business.

Plus he was at Arsenal for years being cock-blocked by Kronke - the thought of actually being able to fire a manager with a better one if he wants to means it's probably top of his Bucket List now.   :)

« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 03:48:07 AM by Toddacelli »
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates

October 02, 2017, 03:32:26 AM
Reply #2
Offline

Toddacelli


The state of the team vs money spent is my guess

Ok so we got rid of players like Cleverly, Barry, Kone, Deulofeo and McGeady and brought in Pickford, Keane, Rooney, Ramirez, Sigurdsson, Vlasic and Onyekuru for what is not a massive net spend.

I would say that the state of the team is massively improved and money well spent largely on youth with great potential futures and a couple of established star performers in the premier League. Massive improvement.

I do not include Lukaku in this and neither should you because Lukaku was not a 'decision' to get rid of - otherwise he would still be here - the fact of the matter was we simply could not hold on to Lukaku any longer and that was no-one's fault.

The 'state of the team' as you put it - is I think the responsibility of the manager - not Walsh.

So considering he has improved personnel (unless you want to swap and get Cleverly and the others back instead?) and have not spent loads (according to some posters on here - me I don't give a shit it's all Monopoly money at this stage) - tell me how you think he's done?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 03:33:57 AM by Toddacelli »
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates


October 02, 2017, 03:46:52 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Toddacelli


We signed loads of good players but with no plan of how to make a team with them

So then another question is - 'Was the team plan Walsh's, Koeman's or both of theirs?"

Sacking Walsh might be good, might be right - I'm just saying "How the fuck do we know when we don't even know what his job is or how well he's doing it?"
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates

October 03, 2017, 01:40:21 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Toddacelli


How the fuck anyone on here can answer this I don't know.

Walsh didn't make the decisions at Chelsea. Allardyce made them at Newcastle. At Hull, Pearson was the one deciding. At Leicester it was Pearson and then Ranieri.

Our recruitment structure is so opaque that assessing anything like that is difficult. He's getting a lot of stick for not bringing in a target man to replace Lukaku, but he tried to bring in one in January and one of the reasons Belfodil didn't come through was because Koeman wouldn't sign off on it without meeting the player.

Honestly, who is in a position to know?
This is my point too.
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates

October 27, 2017, 04:55:26 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Toddacelli


The fact they both joined the club at the same time led to the strange dynamic. Walsh was learning about the club, his new role and what was expected of him and Koeman's strength of personality and obvious backing from Moshiri wouldn't have led to a straightforward relationship. I can well see him acquiescing to Koeman during this period.

In my opinion Walsh will probably be wiser in the role now, will have had his authority respected with this managerial change and we should now see more of a better balance with the new manager. I think his role is vital really and it'd be silly to even think of changing him in the near future.

Agree with this. I don't understand a lot about how these relationships work, but the DoF has got to be the big kahuna and take responsibility on behalf of the club if the manager is straying form the board's vision of where the club needs to be headed.

Walsh being established now, any new managers should be easier to keep in line.
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates


October 28, 2017, 03:06:22 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Toddacelli


what is it with grown men typing 'lol, lolz, trololol' all the time?? madness.

This.

Freedom of speech, express yourself etc but 'USE YOUR WORDS FFS'!

If you want to be milleninnial - use a funny gif - but not too many in one post because those who use mobile phones will lose their shit. Take it from me.

P.S.   - FFS is allowed. So is P.S. because it's proper.

 :snigger:



« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 03:07:58 PM by Toddacelli »
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates

October 28, 2017, 03:24:22 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Toddacelli


Thought it's fairly obvious what he does and what his remit is.

He's responsible for recruitment, scouting and long term value of the squad. Basically authority on player trading, with a view to increasing the value of the squad through transfers.

From there each DoF and manager has a different relationship, with some DoF more willing to bend or accomodate.

But Giroud is a fairly obvious bone of contention for a DoF. He's going to cost a fair amount of money and he's going to take time away from young players who could be developing. At the end he will have minimal resale value.

I think the best way to judge Walsh is on the transfers. All of them, because ultimately he is not just individually responsible in most cases, but holistically responsible.

I think we are in a similar period to other teams before who have done wholesale changes to first team squad. There is little identity or cohesion and it falls apart every way you cut it.

But I think in terms of Walsh remit, I think he's identified a lot of young talented players.

Last summer we signed established players, Williams, Gana, Bolasie. But in Jan we added Lookman and DCL. This summer we've added Pickford, Keane, Klaassen, Vlasic, Sandro, Onyekuru. All players intended to go into first team, but their first major move.

I don't see Cuco, Rooney or Sigurdsson as our problems. Rooney has chipped in with goals, and we shouldn't have been expecting him to carry the team and I'd rather he stopped trying to same extent. Sigurdsson looks a turd in the punch bowl because of the fee, but actually he's a very useful player if used to his strengths. Cuco has got a fair amount of stick, because Koeman liked him, but he cost next to sod all and he's got an engine that allows us to link play, I've seen worse defenders.

I think time will prove that Walsh acquired good players, I think for Koeman, there just wasn't enough off the shelf options immediately. Part of Walsh's remit is to look at development and longer term to avoid too many Rooney's, Giroud's coming in. We've got a lot of more experienced players since Walsh's arrival, so it's not like he's averse to experience. About half the players we've bought have been 26 or over.

Fucking excellent post sir! I feel compelled to thank you for it. This has laid out to me in a well thought out and structured way what Walsh is probably tasked with. Makes sense.

I still wonder though how he is measured. What are the indicators of how good a job he is doing? I think there are probably quite a few areas he will be judged against, not all of them complimentary so I think it may be quite difficult to measure exactly how successful he's being:

Value of squad against money spent
Age of squad
Success of individuals brought in
Success of first team as a whole
Position of team in table against last year
Depth of squad per position
Successful aquisitions of Tier 1 targets against 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices

It doesn't seem to be a straightforward role to measure. He may have brought in a player who has been great individually but use of that player by the manager could fuck up the shape and be a detriment overall to the team performance. We've seen it before where you have one really good player but the team play better without him.

It may be that he failed to get the first choice target for a position - bad mark for Steve - but the alternative he brought in could have been a real success - good work Steve!

The position of the squad could be improved by a couple of established players but then the value of the squad and the age of the squad have gone further away from where we want to be.

I think it's a real balancing act, even contradictory at times, so with respect to the thread title - I think something this complex needs a lot more time to get right and with the right person in the role (fingers crossed we have that) it should improve year on year - but if we sack too quickly, I think we take big steps backwards and the next person has to start almost from scratch.

It seems to me from Ridge's post that this is a role that should be judged over 5 years rather than 1. I know - that makes me nervous too - 5 years is a long time to be doing it wrong - but I don't think we can see too much wrong apart from 1 area - league position - and that is more directly affected by the manager.

Let's hope the good stuff we have seen from this year is improved on each window.
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates

October 29, 2017, 01:28:54 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Toddacelli


Stay out of the who should we go for thread. They’re talking about fighting Katie Price for some reason.

Brilliant.

It has gone a bit 'my dad's bigger than your dad' in there, weirdly.
    

I'm only here for the cladding/Bramley Moore Dock updates