Andrew Nestor Game Model

[WBA123]

In all honesty reading that and the link re TM posted by Soulman, it is explicably clear why we are where we are. I would imagine TM is most likely glad he has gone. Managing a side in the way he was asked to is not really managing a side at all.

We will see when the next manager/coach/lamb to the slaughter arrives how this theory works for them. Take all of this nonsense and Tony Mowbray?s explanation of why Dike did not feature as much as fans would have liked, I think it does not take a brain surgeon to understand the problems that Tony Mowbray was facing.

Mowbray appeared to make strange selections, these appear driven by more than one force. Prando hits the nail on the head when he says, ?An extremely complex scenario to govern what is essentially a simple game. Interesting to see whom the data throws up as the next ideal choice.?

Interesting or perhaps worrying, having a coach or manager who is not permitted to manage. Who would want a job like that?

I don't see it that way. They are allowed to manage, but they have to manage within the model.

So if we play a particular formation, any manager who we speak with will need to be on board with that. We also want a manager who is going to give our younger players exposure, because the more they play and perform - the more resale value we have.

At times recently, we've dropped Fellows and played Diangana or Swift. Why? They are leaving for nothing at the end of the season. Its not like they really added anything anyway, but Fellows could have got another 2, 3, 4 assists and his stats look even more appealing to a buyer. If we sell Fellows for 15m, it gives us an option to reinvest that money on other players.

Had Wildsmith not been so mistake prone, he would likely still be in goal instead of Griffiths...again, which one has more resale value? This is common sense, and we need a manager on board with it. Maybe we could put up with it if we were winning games, but we haven't been. So TM failed that test miserably.

I also notice he made similar comments when he left Sunderland, who wanted a manager to develop younger players. They have the same idea as us. The club has to be on the same page as the manager, and we clearly weren't with TM.

[On Balance]

I don't see it that way. They are allowed to manage, but they have to manage within the model.

So if we play a particular formation, any manager who we speak with will need to be on board with that. We also want a manager who is going to give our younger players exposure, because the more they play and perform - the more resale value we have.

At times recently, we've dropped Fellows and played Diangana or Swift. Why? They are leaving for nothing at the end of the season. Its not like they really added anything anyway, but Fellows could have got another 2, 3, 4 assists and his stats look even more appealing to a buyer. If we sell Fellows for 15m, it gives us an option to reinvest that money on other players.

Had Wildsmith not been so mistake prone, he would likely still be in goal instead of Griffiths...again, which one has more resale value? This is common sense, and we need a manager on board with it. Maybe we could put up with it if we were winning games, but we haven't been. So TM failed that test miserably.

I also notice he made similar comments when he left Sunderland, who wanted a manager to develop younger players. They have the same idea as us. The club has to be on the same page as the manager, and we clearly weren't with TM.

Time will tell. Next season with the new person on board will provide an indication if this formula works. If we find ourselves in a similar situation then it may need a rethink.

The game itself is simple, this at least to me appears complicated and restrictive.

[baggiematt]

This notion of one manager being responsible for a set of players, style of play and overall performance of the football club, is outdated. Sides like United show why this doesn?t work.

The manager role becomes more autonomous the longer they are in post and the more successful they are in the management team. Why would a failing manager have total autonomy?

The real need of the club is miles bigger than the manager.