A Kamil is a horse designed by committee

[RamNut]

It doesn’t make much sense.

the most qualified one of the lot is probably Gary bowyer, and he doesn’t even get a mention.

[brady1993]

14 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Undoubtedly. It's a resounding yes from me. Looking in from the outside, I could clearly detect evidence of the phenomenon known as "Groupthink" (see attached - read it an think back about the course of events). If you read Ryan Conway's Tweet earlier today as to why Cocu et al were "mutually agreed to leave", you'll see "fitness" and "confused tactics" being cited as reasons. If you also examine the way they went about transfer strategy, again you can see examples of a lack of "strategic thinking" and sloppy attitudes to "risk analysis". Hence we start the season without a centre forward; and as you rightly say @Duracell, the problem remains. We now have "4 interim managers". I'd love to be a "fly on the wall psychologist" observing discussions amongst Rooney, Rosenior, Walker and Given over the course of the next 3 games (they are "in charge" for that many") but we may see a continuation of "poor decisions" unless the group dynamic that we have hitherto seen, ie one built around obtaining group cohesiveness rather than the "right" decision, changes and a "leader" emerges who is able to "have the last say" on key decisions.

Also, in relation to Cocu et al, why did we have to recruit Shane Nicholson as "fitness coach" back in September (?) when we had Cocu + 3 coaches to help? What is it about fitness training that meant those guys couldn't have led on it? Rather begs belief really. 

It may be apocryphal, but Cloughie once famously remarked that the best committee is a committee of 3 with 2 absentee members. Ironic given his partnership with Peter Taylor, but he was dead right. 2 heads are better than 1 BUT there must be 1 person who is "in charge" who trumps the rest. Otherwise you get poor leadership and poor decisions. And that is what we have suffered from - no question in my mind. 

I largely agree except for two small points.

1) I think the lack of striker acquisition had more down to not expecting Martin to leave combined not having the immediate cash to get a target over the line. Most of the targets we had this summer looked to have been lined up for a while. With Jozwiak and Te Wierik nearly joining in January. You could be right of course but I'm not wholly convinced.

2) I'd say in this day and age a fitness coach is a very specialised position often requiring a very different knowledge base. If you look at most top sports teams across all sports they will have at least one specialist fitness coach and probably more than one. 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Charming.

YOU started the personal stuff mate.

[Jack Willow]

 

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Too many Coaches and no Manager, it doesn't look good.

[RoyMac5]

10 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It doesn’t make much sense.

the most qualified one of the lot is probably Gary bowyer, and he doesn’t even get a mention.

He's in the Academy.

[Ellafella]

53 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

It only needs one to be in charge. I get the feeling Cocu was more of a committee type?

Most definitely.

[plymouthram]

7 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Charming.

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting different viewpoints but then taking ultimate responsibility for the decision.

I do agree that we are top heavy with coaches. Even having just had three leave, there is still an over abundance.

Nevertheless, surely one of them has been assigned the "final decision maker" role. I thought I had read that it was Rooney but, in going back to find a formal reference, all articles do not specify any one of them in particular.

Then I agree, a committee would be bad in every respect.

If Rooney is the leader and pitching for the job permanently, he should keep himself out of the side and manage from the touchline. Otherwise, it will be confused by Rosenior doing the touchline duties.

The subject being too many coaches, Rosenior was brought in to help with his experience with championship football. Shay Given is the Goalkeeping coach and I don't think his role will change. Justin Walker, who spent several years with the academy only just stepped up this season as the development coach. Rooney being the additional coach, due to a financial deal that suited both parties (Derby getting a player). Most other clubs have a Manager, Ass/Manager, a couple of assistant coaches, Goalie coach, Fitness coach and a Development coach. We have lost Cocu and his 2 Dutch coaches, leaving us with the 4 lads now as interim first team coaches. I just hope they worked together and sing from the same hymn sheet. I do believe that Wayne is the lead in the foursome, lets hope the incoming new owners take over as soon as possible and we sort out the appointment very quickly.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Duracell said:

Ignore the pun, this thread isn't about Jozwiak at all, but the amount of leaders we have.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54959979

With Wayne Rooney, Liam Rosenior, Shay Given and Justin Walker taking charge against Bristol, it's struck me how absurdly top-heavy the club has been with coaches.

That's four interim managers. If most clubs lost three first team coaches, they wouldn't have any realistic internal candidates left to take charge without dipping into the academy.

We also have Wassall who could take charge. Bird and Davies have also been captain, and I've even heard the latter suggested as a possible coach!

My question is - do we need to streamline the coaching staff?

In my opinion, Cocu or not, I still think we have a wider problem: too many cooks in the kitchen. We won't see leadership until we have fewer leaders.

Rooney part time, Given keeper coach, and Walker in there to help integrate the academy graduates. Rosenior should naturally be the interim manager, with the others being part of the interim management team.

It was only a few seasons ago when we had several 'captains' on the field all at once. Carson, Baird, Keogh, Shackell, Johnson, Bryson, Martin. It didn't appear to affect us on the pitch.

[IslandExile]

36 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

YOU started the personal stuff mate.

Yeah, ok, I am sorry.

I grew tired of your negativity towards Cocu before he left and yet, still, I have seen you express your disdain for him on three separate topics today.

Nevertheless, I was wrong to snap so I apologise.

On the committee issue, I do not think the preponderance of coaches was down to Cocu. Sure he brought in his two lieutenants but I think Rosenior was drafted in, probably by Mel, because of Cocu's lack of time in the championship.

Given was already here as the goalkeeper coach.

Then Rooney was given "coach" status in order to attract him to the club. Again a Mel decision.

Shane Nicholson as fitness coach... Maybe a result of the complaints over training.

Hasn't Gary Bowyer taken over from Craig Short in the academy, so not a first team coach.

Edit: I forgot Walker but others have already described his role.

[Millenniumram]

Going to go slightly against the grain and say I don’t think having a large number of coaches is a bad thing. In fact, I think any properly organised club needs a fairly large backroom team to be successful. After all, the more coaches you have, the more specialised people you have working with players on the training pitch. Working in more focused groups in training can only help players improve individually imo. You need those different skill sets as part of your backroom team - attacking coaches, defensive coaches, goalkeeping coach, fitness coaches, data analysts etc etc. 

The problems arise when there’s too many voices being put forward toward tactical decisions. I’ve no idea whether that was the case under Cocu, but it can certainly get confusing if there’s lots of different viewpoints out there. The way to solve that issue is simply for the manager to take charge and make decisions himself. He can take suggestions from the coaching staff, but ultimately should be able to just tell them if he doesn’t want their opinion. Save for the odd input from his assistant, the manager should be making the big calls.

[i-Ram]

44 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Undoubtedly. It's a resounding yes from me. Looking in from the outside, I could clearly detect evidence of the phenomenon known as "Groupthink" (see attached - read it an think back about the course of events). If you read Ryan Conway's Tweet earlier today as to why Cocu et al were "mutually agreed to leave", you'll see "fitness" and "confused tactics" being cited as reasons. If you also examine the way they went about transfer strategy, again you can see examples of a lack of "strategic thinking" and sloppy attitudes to "risk analysis". Hence we start the season without a centre forward; and as you rightly say @Duracell, the problem remains. We now have "4 interim managers". I'd love to be a "fly on the wall psychologist" observing discussions amongst Rooney, Rosenior, Walker and Given over the course of the next 3 games (they are "in charge" for that many") but we may see a continuation of "poor decisions" unless the group dynamic that we have hitherto seen, ie one built around obtaining group cohesiveness rather than the "right" decision, changes and a "leader" emerges who is able to "have the last say" on key decisions.

Also, in relation to Cocu et al, why did we have to recruit Shane Nicholson as "fitness coach" back in September (?) when we had Cocu + 3 coaches to help? What is it about fitness training that meant those guys couldn't have led on it? Rather begs belief really. 

It may be apocryphal, but Cloughie once famously remarked that the best committee is a committee of 3 with 2 absentee members. Ironic given his partnership with Peter Taylor, but he was dead right. 2 heads are better than 1 BUT there must be 1 person who is "in charge" who trumps the rest. Otherwise you get poor leadership and poor decisions. And that is what we have suffered from - no question in my mind. 

Sorry, didn’t get past the bit in bold. If you think we haven’t got a centre forward because of Cocu and his teams “lack of "strategic thinking" and sloppy attitudes to "risk analysis"  you really haven’t been following the plot. We couldn’t offer Martin the contract he wanted or ultimately secure Dursun (or any other competent alternative) as a replacement because we don’t have a pot to piss in. Or if you prefer, no receptacle in which to discharge urine.

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

I grew tired of your negativity towards Cocu before he left and yet, still, I have seen you express your disdain for him on three separate topics today.

This is so VERY wrong of you to say this.

I think Cocu is a very decent man, I said in another thread how upsetting it is when 'good people fail'. YOU chose to see any comments that go against his football values as 'expressing disdain'. You need to get a grip, I've never said things that are anti-Cocu the man.

I'm fed up of you accusing me of things I have not said - oh and whilst doing it making personal jibes!

[IslandExile]

9 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

the manager should be making the big calls.

Agree with your entire post @Millenniumram. But I wonder how you equate it with your pro stance for a DoF in that thread.

You see, I think having a DoF and a manager is where there could be conflicts over decision making - and that's been the case at various clubs... Spurs, Everton and Arsenal in recent times.

[IslandExile]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

This is so VERY wrong of you to say this.

I think Cocu is a very decent man, I said in another thread how upsetting it is when 'good people fail'. YOU chose to see any comments that go against his football values as 'expressing disdain'. You need to get a grip, I've never said things that are anti-Cocu the man.

I'm fed up of you accusing me of things I have not said.

Sorry again. I should have said "Cocu's management".

[Ellafella]

22 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

I largely agree except for two small points.

1) I think the lack of striker acquisition had more down to not expecting Martin to leave combined not having the immediate cash to get a target over the line. Most of the targets we had this summer looked to have been lined up for a while. With Jozwiak and Te Wierik nearly joining in January. You could be right of course but I'm not wholly convinced.

2) I'd say in this day and age a fitness coach is a very specialised position often requiring a very different knowledge base. If you look at most top sports teams across all sports they will have at least one specialist fitness coach and probably more than one. 

I respect your views @brady1993and more often than not agree with you. But:

1. Why would they not expect Martin to leave? 
 Why not have the cash? If 1 is true, it makes it even more important to do the risk analysis. Not having a striker meant we scored no goals which meant we won no games which meant we fell to the bottom of the league. Which cost Cocu et al their jobs. Had CM stayed, ironically, they might all still be in the job but once that happened the whole thing unravelled with a domino like effect. If I was Cocu I’d have been straight on the phone to MM saying this is a show-stopping risk...no Martin could mean no striker could mean no goals could mean no wins could mean bottom of the table. That was the worst case scenario and that, unluckily played out. Cocu held himself hostage to fortune and fortune won. 
 

2. If specialist coaches are that specialist, why does Cocu’s group not include one? And if that’s ok, why did it take 15 months to get one in? It’s a gap that was identified just a short time before the writing appeared on the wall. Doesn’t reflect well on Cocu’s assessment of what was required to compete. 
 

So, for both above scenarios it was too little too late:

1. CM: we offered too little too late

2. Dursun, the German centre-forward target: we offered too little too late. 

3. Colin Kazim-Richards - the eventual “solution outcome”; he’d been training with Derby for 3 weeks prior to the deadline but still wasn’t fit enough to start a game; so too little too late. Bring him on with 10 minutes left - too little to late. 
4. Losing 1-0 with just 5 minutes to go - get Sibley / Knight on = too little too late. 
 

Too little too late is the product of a lack of decisiveness despite Cocu having 4 heads on the bench. So the inverse law of decision-making is the more heads you have the less likely you are to make a decision in time to effect the outcome. 
And we haven’t even examined “confused tactics”. 
 

[Ellafella]

24 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Sorry, didn’t get past the bit in bold. If you think we haven’t got a centre forward because of Cocu and his teams “lack of "strategic thinking" and sloppy attitudes to "risk analysis"  you really haven’t been following the plot. We couldn’t offer Martin the contract he wanted or ultimately secure Dursun (or any other competent alternative) as a replacement because we don’t have a pot to piss in. Or if you prefer, no receptacle in which to discharge urine.

...but we can afford to drop to the foot of the table, lose revenue streams through losing sponsorship, television exposure and paying spectators. Had we still been attending matches crowds would’ve dwindled I estimate to about 17k by the Barnsley game. So, we couldn’t afford the player? But we can afford the impact of that? Do the risk analysis properly and for every action, there is the a reaction. 
 

And I chose to answer the point @i-Ramdespite your previous disrespectful treatment of my views on this forum. 

[oomarkwright]

I can't wait to read the book about what's gone on behind the scenes in the last 18 months!

[i-Ram]

Just now, Ellafella said:

...but we can afford to drop to the foot of the table, lose revenue streams through losing sponsorship, television exposure and paying spectators. Had we still been attending matches crowds would’ve dwindled I estimate to about 17k by the Barnsley game. So, we couldn’t afford the player? But we can afford the impact of that? Do the risk analysis properly and for every action, there is the a reaction. 

But what you are choosing to ignore, or for some reason just can’t see, is that the club might simply not have had any cash (or headroom PPS) wise to do the deals I mentioned. I just cannot accept that Cocu and his team did not identify that a striker was vital. You are hanging the wrong men. If you need someone to string up, look a bit higher up the club structure.

[Rev]

5 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

...but we can afford to drop to the foot of the table, lose revenue streams through losing sponsorship, television exposure and paying spectators. Had we still been attending matches crowds would’ve dwindled I estimate to about 17k by the Barnsley game. So, we couldn’t afford the player? But we can afford the impact of that? Do the risk analysis properly and for every action, there is the a reaction. 

Maybe they did the risk/reward analysis, and Martin fell the wrong side of it?

Maybe they thought his last deal at £5m over 4 seasons, for the return of 12 league goals in 64 appearances in a Derby shirt was poor VFM?

Maybe they saw his contribution lessening now he's 32 years old? 

Maybe they took his ongoing health issues into consideration?

Maybe, just maybe, Chris wanted to leave the club at all costs, and nothing we offered him would change his mind?

 

[Ellafella]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

But what you are choosing to ignore, or for some reason just can’t see, is that the club might simply not have had any cash (or headroom PPS) wise to do the deals I mentioned. I just cannot accept that Cocu and his team did not identify that a striker was vital. You are hanging the wrong men. If you need someone to string up, look a bit higher up the club structure.

You have no evidence for that. It’s pure surmisation on your part. And even if that was the case, Cocu and his coaches should have laid the impact at MM’s door and abrogated responsibility for the worst case scenario which is the outcome that resulted. Instead, they were hoisted by their own petard and guilty of naïveté.