📝 Tobi Adebayo-Rowling Signs

[SaltySeaDog]

That's my feeling too. As a fan, I just feel less connected to a head coach than I do a manager, whom I know would be calling all the shots both on and off the field. A head coach has less authority. That could affect fans' and players' perception of them beyond someone who knows about tactics and training.

Good managers are good leaders. The two things are virtually synonymous. Good coaches aren't necessarily good leaders. But is it possible to be successful and fully motivated without a true leader in the dugout?

Good points there Slack & 41.

That's a key component for success. How are we going to get that?

[ncfcog]

A Head Coach is responsible for playing matters and therefore has to command the respect of his players, that's no different whether a HC or a Manager. Also, this isn't the 1970s any more, I'd love to know how many 'managers' have full autonomy on player signings these days.

Why do people have to find a negative in everything that the club does? Why can't a head coach be a good leader as well? Surely that still remains a key component of their job?

As for recruiting players that suit a particular style that is very common now on the continent, a club decides on an identity and if coach recruitment is based on this then it makes it easier for both players and the new coach to hit the ground running working with a clearly accepted and understood system at every level within the club.

Click on this link and tell me out of the managers shown, if you were keeping to our current style of play, who would be best suited to replacing IB? You can combine and separate the charts.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9997718/

[upthemaggies]

That's my feeling too. As a fan, I just feel less connected to a head coach than I do a manager, whom I know would be calling all the shots both on and off the field. A head coach has less authority. That could affect fans' and players' perception of them beyond someone who knows about tactics and training.

Good managers are good leaders. The two things are virtually synonymous. Good coaches aren't necessarily good leaders. But is it possible to be successful and fully motivated without a true leader in the dugout?

Wouldn't be so bad if the owners had something about them, but from top to bottom everything about Notts at the moment comes across as weak, insipid and nerdy.

[laddo]

Wouldn't be so bad if the owners had something about them, but from top to bottom everything about Notts at the moment comes across as weak, insipid and nerdy.

Not a fan UTM?

[upthemaggies]

Not a fan UTM?

I think you've got to have balance to some degree, but at the moment the club seems to be 100% moulded in the owners' image.

[SwalePie]

Wouldn't be so bad if the owners had something about them, but from top to bottom everything about Notts at the moment comes across as weak, insipid and nerdy.

I do see your point but the flip side of this is that we also come across as reserved, efficient and professional to those looking for positivity.

[SwalePie]

A Head Coach is responsible for playing matters and therefore has to command the respect of his players, that's no different whether a HC or a Manager. Also, this isn't the 1970s any more, I'd love to know how many 'managers' have full autonomy on player signings these days.

Why do people have to find a negative in everything that the club does? Why can't a head coach be a good leader as well? Surely that still remains a key component of their job?

As for recruiting players that suit a particular style that is very common now on the continent, a club decides on an identity and if coach recruitment is based on this then it makes it easier for both players and the new coach to hit the ground running working with a clearly accepted and understood system at every level within the club.

Click on this link and tell me out of the managers shown, if you were keeping to our current style of play, who would be best suited to replacing IB? You can combine and separate the charts.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9997718/

Looks to me like Dennis the Menace could be an excellent fit. It's uncanny. Might also explain the polite message of thanks to them in yesterday's announcement.

[slack_pie]

A Head Coach is responsible for playing matters and therefore has to command the respect of his players, that's no different whether a HC or a Manager. Also, this isn't the 1970s any more, I'd love to know how many 'managers' have full autonomy on player signings these days.

Why do people have to find a negative in everything that the club does? Why can't a head coach be a good leader as well? Surely that still remains a key component of their job?

As for recruiting players that suit a particular style that is very common now on the continent, a club decides on an identity and if coach recruitment is based on this then it makes it easier for both players and the new coach to hit the ground running working with a clearly accepted and understood system at every level within the club.

Click on this link and tell me out of the managers shown, if you were keeping to our current style of play, who would be best suited to replacing IB? You can combine and separate the charts.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9997718/

I wasn't being negative myself. I have pointed out the positive and negatives of managers and head coaches as I see them. Overall, the head coach + unchanging philosophy seems the best, most reliable way to build something over the long term. That's what we're going for. And why not - short-term thinking and instability got us into this mess in the first place.

I just question whether or not head coaches are as proficient at motivating a team and instilling in them a ruthless determination to win games. That's what we've been missing. We have good players. We play good football. We just don't have that extra mental ingredient to go and win the league.

[upthemaggies]

I wasn't being negative myself. I have pointed out the positive and negatives of managers and head coaches as I see them. Overall, the head coach + unchanging philosophy seems the best, most reliable way to build something over the long term. That's what we're going for. And why not - short-term thinking and instability got us into this mess in the first place.

.

180 changes in play style has also got us out of a mess and/or delivered success. See the difference between Barnwell and Warnock, Warnock and Walker, McP-Kevan and Cotterill.

Continuity was the idea when we went from Walker to Slade and look how that turned out.

[slack_pie]

180 changes in play style has also got us out of a mess and/or delivered success. See the difference between Barnwell and Warnock, Warnock and Walker, McP-Kevan and Cotterill.

Continuity was the idea when we went from Walker to Slade and look how that turned out.

True, but bringing in a new manager with a new playing style is like rolling the dice. It might work, it might not. If it doesn't, you have to role the dice again, and again, and again.

For Notts, it only worked a few times and failed the rest. We get into a right old mess as a result.

While part of me would love to bring in a seasoned manager who's already experienced success at this level and scrap the whole 'this is our philosophy' thing, I do appreciate what we are attempting to do at the moment. It's a bigger-picture approach - something we've never really tried before.

Ultimately, this whole thing seems like a giant experiment. No one knows how it will turn out. But favouring stability over chaos seems like a sensible move given our past.