• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Damien Comolli

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211053#msg1211053 date=1288821312]
Here's the thing:

It's not possible to make our scouting any worse, so any move is a good one.
[/quote]

ha ha ... thanks for the positive slant! 🙂
 
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211053#msg1211053 date=1288821312]
Here's the thing:

It's not possible to make our scouting any worse, so any move is a good one.
[/quote]

Quite so.
 
[quote author=Stulikesdrums link=topic=42566.msg1211060#msg1211060 date=1288823190]
It's good having Ryan back.
Well said.
[/quote]

X
 
[quote author=Binny link=topic=42566.msg1210824#msg1210824 date=1288801037]
[

Journalists quizzed the boss on if he felt the appointment of Comolli was a sign of a cultural shift at Liverpool and also asked for his thoughts on the role Anfield's new man will play.

Hodgson replied: "When I worked at Fulham I worked very closely with Alistair Mackintosh. He didn't have the title 'sporting director' but my dealings with him and the way we worked together, I would have called him sporting director.

"He had other responsibilities as well with regard to Mohammed Al-Fayed, but as far as I was concerned he was my sporting director and I am very used to working in that way.

[/quote]

Budgie is chatting shit right there, Mackintosh was the Chief Exec of Fulham, he wasn't a sporting director whatsoever his remit is the same as Gill at Utd, Cooke at City, simply money men who have finaly say on whether there are funds for any particular transfer. This appointment has been forced on Budgie and it looks like he is having to pull out the charm offensive.
 
another interesting article on what comolli might mean for LFC, from the BBC:



Much like Rafael Benitez's time as Liverpool manager the arrival of Damien Comolli at Anfield as the club's director of football strategy is likely to divide opinion both with fans and pundits - good or bad, genius or idiot?

The position of director of football has become almost a dirty word within English football and it is hard to think of an example in the Premier League where it has not ended in tears.

The 38-year-old Comolli, who has been recruited from St Etienne, is a prime example. His time as Tottenham's director of football ended acrimoniously when he was dismissed along with manager Juande Ramos after the club's dreadful start to the 2008-09 season.

Across the Channel the picture is very different and most top European clubs have a director of football overseeing the club's strategy.

"The English model hasn't worked because chairmen haven't matched the right types," European scout Tor-Kristian Karlsen, who has worked for German clubs Hannover 96 and Bayer Leverkusen, told BBC Sport.

"Structurally, it always makes sense that the director of football arrives before the head coach or manager, so he can have a hand in appointing a person who shares his vision.

Sabermetrics is a bit of a red herring in relation to football

European scout Tor-Kristian Karlsen
"It's key that the director of football has no coaching ambitions and that the training ground is the manager's domain - the areas of responsibility must be clearly defined as grey areas just create conflicts."

When Norwegian Karlsen was working for Leverkusen, the Bundesliga club's transfer operation was so profitable that it funded the BayArena outfit's entire operation.

Key to the success of Leverkusen, who reached the Champions League final in 2002, was then general manager Reiner Calmund, who was an ever present figure at the club as coaches came and went.


Liverpool owner John W Henry wants some bang for his buck in the transfer market
Leverkusen had 20 international scouts, five of them working full-time - one each in Brazil and Argentina - earning 50,000 euros (£44,000) a year.

"The philosophy was to be self sufficient and to buy up-and-coming young exciting players, often from Brazil, which Leverkusen could develop and sell on," the 35-year-old Karlsen added.

"Players like Dimitar Berbatov, Lucio, Juan, Ze Roberto and Emerson are good examples of this strategy."

Some of the players Comolli brought to White Hart Lane - Gareth Bale, Tom Huddlestone, Michael Dawson, Aaron Lennon, Jermain Defoe and Jermaine Jenas - provide a clue as to the Frenchman's modus operandi; buy young English talent to ensure maximum resale value if they are to be sold on.

"Big wages and relatively high fees for players in their late 20s and early 30s does not fit with New England Sport Venture's vision," said writer Paul Tomkins, who recently met John W Henry for lunch after Liverpool's owner contacted him on Facebook, having read his books.
"Sometimes you need to pick up a canny older player as a bargain, but the average age of Joe Cole, Christian Poulsen, Raul Meireles and Paul Konchesky, plus the re-signed Fabio Aurelio, is 30," Tomkins continued.

"So far, only Meireles of those five has impressed Liverpool fans this season. I hope it can get back to how the likes of Pepe Reina, Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano, Daniel Agger and Xabi Alonso, who were all bought when they were in their early 20s."

Liverpool's takeover by NESV prompted a swathe of newspaper articles suggesting that the Boston Red Sox's owners wanted to introduce the principle of sabermetrics to the Premier League.

Using statistical analysis to recruit players rather than rely on the subjective judgement of coaches and scouts, sabermetrics was an idea developed by baseball fan Bill James.


Click to play
Click to play
French academy row - Football Focus investigates
It was an idea put to the test with some success by the Oakland 'A's general manager Billy Beane and author Michael Lewis wrote the book "Moneyball" about the story, which is now being filmed, with Brad Pitt starring.

In the past Comolli has talked of his friendship with Beane, who Henry tried to bring to the Red Sox before hiring James as a consultant, while Chelsea's performance director Mike Forde is a disciple of sabermetrics.

Tomkins' latest book "Pay As You Play", which has been talked of as the football equivalent of "Moneyball", looks at the relationship between money and success in the Premier League.

"The data shows that it wasn't purely money behind [Sir] Alex Ferguson's success at Manchester United, but that in some seasons - particularly the first few years, and at times when rivals posed a greater threat - it played a more pronounced role," wrote Tomkins and his co-authors Graeme Riley and Gary Fulcher.

That conclusion suggests that as much as NESV want to obtain more 'bang for their buck' in the transfer market if Liverpool are to win the Premier League in the future plenty of greenbacks will be needed. That is the size of the task facing Comolli.

Karlsen, however, remains sceptical about the application of statistical analysis to the business of talent identification.

"Baseball consists of set pieces, so it's perfect for cricket," argued Karlsen. "But football has too many variables, cultures and styles. It's difficult to rate players merely on statistics. Sabermetrics is a bit of a red herring in relation to football."

For Karlsen, who has described identifying talent as like "detective work", the key principles to transfers are timing, the ability to target cheaper and developing markets and to always have a resale value in mind.

"In addition to possessing the trained eye, what's really important is to understand the relationship between value and quality so you can compare players from different countries or even continents and their respective attributes and measure up which player represent best value," he commented.

The Norwegian pointed to his recommendation to German team Hannover to buy Hungarian international midfielder Szabolcs Huszti from French club Metz for £200,000, who was then sold to Russian team Zenit St Petersburg for £2.5m.

"Huszti might not be a household name but this transfer illustrates that you can create value and a business model out of shrewd player transactions," said Karlsen, who worked under Graham Taylor at Watford between 1998 and 2000.

"It's about knowing the world wide markets, prices and sniffing out an opportunity."

Another top European scout, who works for a top-four Premier League club, has also questioned whether statistical analysis would ever be able to evaluate a player's character.

"It's very important to consider a player's mentality. We have a very good spirit at our club, so you have to be very careful. If you bring two or three players with a bad attitude it could be disastrous," the scout, who did not want to be named, told BBC Sport.

"You don't have to have been a player to excel as a scout, but when you've played it's almost as if you can smell a good player. That's why it is important to watch players over a long period."

Key for this scout, who has been working for his club for eight years, was to build a long-term, trusting relationship with the manager and to be always watching and analysing.

606: DEBATE
Seems split on here as to whether it's a good appointment

brian
"I love my life and football is my passion. I watch football all the time, even when I'm home, sometimes three games in an evening on televsion. My girlfriend hasn't watched a movie in six months," he added.

Like Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, there is a little that Comolli does not know about the French market but Karlsen has suggested Liverpool's new football strategist should also elsewhere as he goes about the business of reshaping Anfield's transfer operation.

"First and foremost Liverpool should devote a minimum 25% of their resources to exploiting their local area. There's nothing that excites a Liverpool fan more than when a local academy kid pulls on that red strip," Karlsen said.

"He should also keep a close eye on the German market. It's undervalued if you compare the quality to the going rates, even compared to France. Holland, Spain and Italy are also expensive markets with great domestic competition for the best talent."

There are just over 50 days to the opening of the January transfer window. No pressure then on Comolli.....
 
Hodgson is adamant his authority has not been undermined by Comolli's appointment and dismissed concerns that Tottenham's former troubles could be replicated at Anfield. Asked whether he retained the final say on signings, the manager replied: "I do, yes. We will have to wait and see, I suppose, but there is no reason for me not to believe that. I would be very surprised if managers and coaches of the class of Martin Jol and Juande Ramos just took players totally on somebody else's recommendation. It won't happen here. I don't think so anyway."

How Hodgson would react if a player was imposed on him is also to be determined. He said: "That is looking at something which I think is a positive appointment in a negative way. I can't imagine it happening, but who knows? Maybe it will and if that day comes, God forbid. I will deal with it but I'm not going to be spending any time concerning myself with it at the moment. It's certainly not the idea behind his appointment, I do know that for certain."

'Yeah its me. I definitely have final say on transfers. But we'll see. I might not. I'm not sure. God forbid. It won't happen here for sure. I know that much. I don't think so anyway. We'll see.'
 
Watching Hodgson's views on this is actually a bit sad.

It's like watching Douglas Haig explain how he thought he could fight WW1 using 19th century tactics.
 
My impression of Comolli's performance at Tottenham was that he is an amazing scout of young undervalued talent and, as such, is perfect for laying a long-term foundation for a football club. However, I don't think he is any good at identifying what the team needs in the short-term. His record at Tottenham suggests that perhaps he doesn't even care about balance of the team in the short-term. Remember when everybody at Spurs was crying out for more steel in midfield and a decent left winger - and Comolli brought them Darren Bent, Kevin-Prince Boateng, Younes Kaboul and Gareth Bale - all good players, as it turned out, but completely wrong for what Spurs needed that particular season. They were already overloaded with strikers and did not need Darren Bent, while the rest of the young, skillful players Comolli bought did nothing to address Spurs' problems at left wing (even though Bale proved to be the solution 3 seasons later) and their soft underbelly. This eventually led to Comolli's firing.

So my feelings on Comolli's appointment are mixed. He clearly has an eye for talent and I generally like the kinds of players he finds - young, skillful, fast and athletic. His success rate with signing players is impressive, certainly better than Rafa's. On the other hand, I feel that he needs a strong counter-weight in the form of a powerful manager who has a say in the transfer policy and obviously cares about the balance of the team here and now - not 5 years from now. Without this counter-weight, I am afraid Comolli will keep buying players he likes without much regard for the current needs of the team.

So let me make a prediction. With Comolli in charge of implementing NESV's long-term strategy, Liverpool will generally follow the Arsenal path - attracting and developing young talent from undervalued markets, trying to hold players' wages from rising, buying low and selling high. During Rafa's reign we were getting used to having lots of Spanish-speaking players at the team; now we will have more black players and players of Arabic descent. Probably some young Brazilians as well as they always offer great value for money. I can't see us buying players over 26 any more, other than as temporary stop-gaps. I predict that we will not sign a British player over the age of 23 as long as Comolli is in charge - no more Paul Koncheskys (thank God!) and even Joe Coles (even though his transfer was free, the new owners would likely not have agreed to his wages). We will sign several young players this winter (at least one of them from France). I don't have any inside info, but given Comolli's track record, I think I already know which young player from Bundesliga he will attempt to snap up in the nearest future.

Another prediction - Comolli's appointment officially starts the process of searching for the new manager. NESV probably subscribes to the belief that Director of Football should be installed before the manager and should be instrumental in hiring a new manager who is compatible with his ideas and working style. Clearly, Comolli is a long-term appointment, and Hodgson is not. Roy will be sacked regardless of results as soon as the new manager is found and accepts the offer. The new manager will be someone who deeply believes in nurturing young talent, it will not necessarily be a well-known name. Although Rijkaard would seem to fit the bill perfectly.
 
Yeah I kinda agree with that.

Although his remit is to find quality, young, value-for-money footballers. It's the Manager's job (Hodgson in this instance) to then make them fit into his tactics and formations.
 
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211111#msg1211111 date=1288840703]
Yeah I kinda agree with that.

Although his remit is to find quality, young, value-for-money footballers. It's the Manager's job (Hodgson in this instance) to then make them fit into his tactics and formations.

[/quote]

But he also needs to be flexible enough in his acquisition process to get players who can contribute now meaningfully to the team.

He is starting at a higher platform than, what he had as Spurs, so he doesn't need to go way out of the way to achieve that. A smart 'strategic team' (TM) can achieve a fine balance between building for the long term and supplementing a good first team, that is a bit thread-bare and over reliant on a few players.


I'm going to hold the 'Strategic Team' responsible for everything (except for things that go on the match day) from now on.
 
Another prediction - Comolli's appointment officially starts the process of searching for the new manager. NESV probably subscribes to the belief that Director of Football should be installed before the manager and should be instrumental in hiring a new manager who is compatible with his ideas and working style. Clearly, Comolli is a long-term appointment, and Hodgson is not. Roy will be sacked regardless of results as soon as the new manager is found and accepts the offer. The new manager will be someone who deeply believes in nurturing young talent, it will not necessarily be a well-known name. Although Rijkaard would seem to fit the bill perfectly.

Lovely
 
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42566.msg1211113#msg1211113 date=1288841054]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211111#msg1211111 date=1288840703]
Yeah I kinda agree with that.

Although his remit is to find quality, young, value-for-money footballers. It's the Manager's job (Hodgson in this instance) to then make them fit into his tactics and formations.

[/quote]

But he also needs to be flexible enough in his acquisition process to get players who can contribute now meaningfully to the team.

[/quote]

But as rurikbird rightly points out, we might get players who are capable of walking into the first team, but they might not be the strikers, or left-wingers that the side so badly needs. He's just going to identify good players. If he finds a great player and they're also left-winger or striker then fantastic - he's killed two birds with the one stone, but don't bank on it.
 
Of course another implication of the "Arsenal strategy" is the difficulty of retaining highly paid players. Anyone who doesn't fit in the wage structure will go.
 
Arsenal haven't lost any player in the recent past because they didn't fit into a wage structure.

I'm all for sensible financial management. Getting the talent young will start them on a reasonable salary base with incremental increases along the way as they improve and gain experience. As their intial value increases so would their salaries.
 
I think his record looks good. Why Alan Sugar doesnt rate him is probably nothing to do with his ability as a scout.

I wonder if we are going for a french manager too? Deschamps?
 
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=42566.msg1211121#msg1211121 date=1288843874]
Arsenal haven't lost any player in the recent past because they didn't fit into a wage structure.

[/quote]

Yes, but that same wage structure means there are certain players that they can't even attract in the first place.
 
Think if Comolli had been cheif scout over the last 5 years our team could already contain...

Bale
Berbatov
Dawson
Lennon
Modric
Bent

Throw Torres, Carra, Gerrard and Riena in with that lot and you have one hell of a side.
 
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=42566.msg1211121#msg1211121 date=1288843874]
Arsenal haven't lost any player in the recent past because they didn't fit into a wage structure.
[/quote]

Adebayor? Did I miss something?
 
[quote author=Mistadobalina link=topic=42566.msg1211124#msg1211124 date=1288844621]
I think his record looks good. Why Alan Sugar doesnt rate him is probably nothing to do with his ability as a scout.

I wonder if we are going for a french manager too? Deschamps?
[/quote]

I'm thinking that Loew fits the mould perfectly.
 
[quote author=Mistadobalina link=topic=42566.msg1211128#msg1211128 date=1288845375]
Think if Comolli had been cheif scout over the last 5 years our team could already contain...

Bale
Berbatov
Dawson
Lennon
Modric
Bent

Throw Torres, Carra, Gerrard and Riena in with that lot and you have one hell of a side.
[/quote]


but we wouldn't have had torres and reina if comolli had been directing our recruitment, would we? we'd have bent and gomes instead.

i'm still just not convinced of the wisdom of this approach. surely in order to accept the downside of having signings who aren't necessarily players the manager would choose, there has to be the upside that a DOF's judgement is practically flawless - certainly far better than a mere manager could offer. but this guy's record is no better than most managers would do given a similar amount of money: bentley at £15m? that's probably an even worse signing than aquilani in my book. £8m on zokora, £16.5m on bent, £8m on kaboul - it's not the stuff that dreams are made of, is it?

people say that a DOF is needed to have long-term thinking both in recruitment and also in overall football strategy. i've got reservations about that:

1. with regard to transfers, what does a long-term approach actually, practically, involve? is there something more to it than just buying young players, and players with strong re-sale potential? because - and maybe i'm missing smething - it seems like there's a danger of overcomplicating the issue. i mean, i've got no problem with either of those, but couldn't a club instead just have a general policy of recruitment around those goals, which a manager would largely have to adhere to? i also don't buy the idea that a traditional british-style manager's aims are incompatible with a long-term recruitment policy - so long as it's understood between the board an the manager that he will be given leeway for taking a long-term view. wenger and ferguson are obvious examples, but even benitez was always keen for the club to invest in the future, given his work on the academy, the countless young players brought into the club, and his well-known complaints about being unable to compete for the young stars with clubs like arsenal. here's a list of players benitez was known or rumoured to have been interested in bringing to anfield, but was either unable to or possibly in some cases decided not to:

florent malouda
simao sabrosa
dani alves
gareth bale
aaron ramsey
theo walcott
stevan jovetic
alexander pato
sergio aguero
gonzalo higuain
nemanja vidic
abou diaby
denilson
david villa
michael turner
sergio ramos

it's not exactly a list of stop-gaps and mediocrity, is it?

2. regards overall football strategy: again, what does that actually mean in the real world? developng a style of play, perhaps? whatever it means, why should a person holding a 'director of football' title be any better at it than one holding a 'team manager' title? it's claimed that the role insulates the club against the risk of large upheavals should an all-powerful manager leave - surely that's just shifting the problem? as risky as it is that a manager might prove inadequate at directing recruitment and building a football philosophy, isn't it equally risky that a DOF might also fail in this regard? a DOF failing and requiring replacement surely involves as much upheaval as a failed manager, doesn't it? it seems to me that there's always going to be risk of an employee not being good enough, and that risk's no smaller or greater whether he's a manager or a director of football. exactly the same problem exists with an overachieving DOF - there's the same risk that he mght be poached as there is for a really good manager.


i have to admit ignorance on this point, but is there any real evidence that this system is better than the british one? i've seen lyon as an example of a club excelling under a single DOF and multiple coaches - is it likely that it was the use of a DOF that was the critical factor? i presume that lyon were alone amongst their close rivals in having a DOF and that all the other clubs used a british-style system? if not, couldn't we just as simplisticly use ferguson and wenger as evidence that our system is superior? where are the examples - if lyon isn't one of them, which it may be - of the DOF structure triumphing in a league where both systems are used equally? i know spurs was an example of the DOF structure apparently not competing well against the manager system, but there must be others that tell a different story i'd have thought.


FWIW, i like the idea of a club having a long-term transfer policy, with a focus on youth and the importance of resale values. i don't like the idea of a DOF in the way comolli seemed to operate at tottenham, ie being the primary driver of all recruitment, youth and first-team. what i'd like to see is him having responsibilty - with the requirement of still having to consult with the manager - for youth recruitment (say, 23 and under) and a hefty budget to do so, and the manager being in charge of all other transfers, again having to consult with the DOF. basically, i don't want the club missing out on an outstanding prospect who could serve for 10 years just because there's a pressing concern in the first team - for example, i wouldn't want us to sign, say, diego forlan in january instead of connor wickham, even though the former would be of more use for the next year ot two. effectively, he'd be a safeguard against short-termism. but i honestly don't see he need for a DOF(S) to have any more power than that.
 
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=42566.msg1211149#msg1211149 date=1288853361]
[quote author=Mistadobalina link=topic=42566.msg1211124#msg1211124 date=1288844621]
I think his record looks good. Why Alan Sugar doesnt rate him is probably nothing to do with his ability as a scout.

I wonder if we are going for a french manager too? Deschamps?
[/quote]

I'm thinking that Loew fits the mould perfectly.
[/quote]

I've been hoping for Löw to become our manager ever since Rafa got the boot. A great tactical manager and he'd probably have no problems working with a sporting director either. He might actually even prefer it.
 
I think you're right in a lot of what you say Peter and I've being saying the same over the last few months whenever it's been brought up. The Director of Football role is all well and good, but unless you have the right man for the job and the dynamic between him, the manager and the rest of the team is very good, you're no better off. In fact, you may find that you're even worse off.

This type of management structure is still a relatively novel idea in England it would seem, spoken about in hushed tones "oooh, a director of football, that's a bit out there" and the way some carry on about NESV, it's like there is almost no room for failure. As several articles have already pointed out, it's all fairly standard stuff - having a director of football - on the continent, so there are going to be a lot of examples of clubs doing it wrong and English clubs haven't fared too badly against their European rivals in recent years.

I'm not against having a Director of Football personally, it could be a good thing for us as we look to improve certain areas of the club, but for some of the reasons already pointed out by rurikbird, I'm not overawed by Comolli. Who knows though, his remit here might slightly different to what it was at Spurs and that might be reflected in the type of players he targets and tries to buy.

Anyways, I think it's important for us to bring in the right manager for Comolli to work with as soon as possible.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211161#msg1211161 date=1288855738]
[quote author=Mistadobalina link=topic=42566.msg1211128#msg1211128 date=1288845375]
Think if Comolli had been cheif scout over the last 5 years our team could already contain...

Bale
Berbatov
Dawson
Lennon
Modric
Bent

Throw Torres, Carra, Gerrard and Riena in with that lot and you have one hell of a side.
[/quote]


but we wouldn't have had torres and reina if comolli had been directing our recruitment, would we? we'd have bent and gomes instead.

i'm still just not convinced of the wisdom of this approach. surely in order to accept the downside of having signings who aren't necessarily players the manager would choose, there has to be the upside that a DOF's judgement is practically flawless - certainly far better than a mere manager could offer. but this guy's record is no better than most managers would do given a similar amount of money: bentley at £15m? that's probably an even worse signing than aquilani in my book. £8m on zokora, £16.5m on bent, £8m on kaboul - it's not the stuff that dreams are made of, is it?

people say that a DOF is needed to have long-term thinking both in recruitment and also in overall football strategy. i've got reservations about that:

1. with regard to transfers, what does a long-term approach actually, practically, involve? is there something more to it than just buying young players, and players with strong re-sale potential? because - and maybe i'm missing smething - it seems like there's a danger of overcomplicating the issue. i mean, i've got no problem with either of those, but couldn't a club instead just have a general policy of recruitment around those goals, which a manager would largely have to adhere to? i also don't buy the idea that a traditional british-style manager's aims are incompatible with a long-term recruitment policy - so long as it's understood between the board an the manager that he will be given leeway for taking a long-term view. wenger and ferguson are obvious examples, but even benitez was always keen for the club to invest in the future, given his work on the academy, the countless young players brought into the club, and his well-known complaints about being unable to compete for the young stars with clubs like arsenal. here's a list of players benitez was known or rumoured to have been interested in bringing to anfield, but was either unable to or possibly in some cases decided not to:

florent malouda
simao sabrosa
dani alves
gareth bale
aaron ramsey
theo walcott
stevan jovetic
alexander pato
sergio aguero
gonzalo higuain
nemanja vidic
abou diaby
denilson
david villa
michael turner
sergio ramos

it's not exactly a list of stop-gaps and mediocrity, is it?

2. regards overall football strategy: again, what does that actually mean in the real world? developng a style of play, perhaps? whatever it means, why should a person holding a 'director of football' title be any better at it than one holding a 'team manager' title? it's claimed that the role insulates the club against the risk of large upheavals should an all-powerful manager leave - surely that's just shifting the problem? as risky as it is that a manager might prove inadequate at directing recruitment and building a football philosophy, isn't it equally risky that a DOF might also fail in this regard? a DOF failing and requiring replacement surely involves as much upheaval as a failed manager, doesn't it? it seems to me that there's always going to be risk of an employee not being good enough, and that risk's no smaller or greater whether he's a manager or a director of football. exactly the same problem exists with an overachieving DOF - there's the same risk that he mght be poached as there is for a really good manager.


i have to admit ignorance on this point, but is there any real evidence that this system is better than the british one? i've seen lyon as an example of a club excelling under a single DOF and multiple coaches - is it likely that it was the use of a DOF that was the critical factor? i presume that lyon were alone amongst their close rivals in having a DOF and that all the other clubs used a british-style system? if not, couldn't we just as simplisticly use ferguson and wenger as evidence that our system is superior? where are the examples - if lyon isn't one of them, which it may be - of the DOF structure triumphing in a league where both systems are used equally? i know spurs was an example of the DOF structure apparently not competing well against the manager system, but there must be others that tell a different story i'd have thought.

FWIW, i like the idea of a club having a long-term transfer policy, with a focus on youth and the importance of resale values. i don't like the idea of a DOF in the way comolli seemed to operate at tottenham, ie being the primary driver of all recruitment, youth and first-team. what i'd like to see is him having responsibilty - with the requirement of still having to consult with the manager - for youth recruitment (say, 23 and under) and a hefty budget to do so, and the manager being in charge of all other transfers, again having to consult with the DOF. basically, i don't want the club missing out on an outstanding prospect who could serve for 10 years just because there's a pressing concern in the first team - for example, i wouldn't want us to sign, say, diego forlan in january instead of connor wickham, even though the former would be of more use for the next year ot two. effectively, he'd be a safeguard against short-termism. but i honestly don't see he need for a DOF(S) to have any more power than that.
[/quote]

I don't think anybody is making the argument that continental DOF + manager system is intrinsically better than the traditional British system. There are things to be said for and against both systems and we can easily come up with examples where one system works as it's supposed to and the other leads to disaster and vice versa. A single manager in charge of transfers might lose the plot or fall into too much short-term thinking or not give enough attention to scouting and rely too much on his "gut instinct" etc. On the other hand, DOF and manager can have incompatible visions of the future of the club or incompatible personalities and that can hurt the club as well.

I don't give any credence to the list of the Rafa "rumored signings". I can judge people only on what they did, not on what they supposedly wanted. Also it's unfair on many levels to compare the list of players Comolli HAS ACTUALLY SIGNED while in Tottenham to Rafa's rumored wish list in charge of Liverpool. For one thing, Tottenham is no Real Madrid. To have actually convinced top class talents like Berbatov and Modric to come to North London is an accomplishment and is not at all the same as to dream of signing Benzema and Villa. Nobody knows if Comolli would have bought Reina and Torres has he been in charge of Liverpool at the time. He bought Gomez and Bent - both quality players BTW - because those were the players that Tottenham could realistically compete for at the time. And I wouldn't use Bentley as an example of the DOF's incompetence - rather an example of a lack of communication between manager and the transfer specialist who bought an expensive player that the manager didn't need or want to use.

One thing I agree with you on is that I would be wary of giving Comolli too much power over transfer policy. I actually think your suggestion of putting him in charge of just "youth recruitment", while the manager would have the final word over the rest of the transfers, might actually be not a bad idea. So far Comolli's record suggests he is a brilliant scout, but perhaps not someone with a strategic vision who is able to successfully balance short-term and long-term needs of the club.
 
This Karlsen guy that has been interviewed by the BBC, actually got a similar position to Comollis here in Norway for one of the aristocratic clubs here. They have a solid fundation of fans, new nice stadium and a very rich fan who has given them plenty of money.

At the time he was appointed, based on his ideas on how they had to be smarter with their money, the club had a defensive minded old swede as coach.

There was a huge clash between Karlsens thinking and the swedes thinking, and it broke into open war as the swede demanded overage and over the top players to be awarded new big contracts. Furthermore he wanted to spend £700.000 (HUGE sum here) on one very good norwegian midfielder where Karlsen pulled out a £100.000 Costa Rican international out of his hat, though only 20 y.o.

The club actually bought both, and the Costa Rican set the league on fire while the norwegian was shipped on to a competitor with a loss.

However, just a few months into his job the clash between the Swedish head coach and Karlsen was so big that the board had to do something. They paid Karlsen a compensation, kept the Swede. The club later that season fired the swede and went down. This season they stayed down....

The board has to be strong on this one. I suspect there will be a war for positioning between COmolli and Hodgson. I can see that from Hodgsons sayings. He will NOT be given the last word, and he will not tolerate some young french bloke telling him his football.... Ship him out the sooner the better.
 
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=42566.msg1211149#msg1211149 date=1288853361]
[quote author=Mistadobalina link=topic=42566.msg1211124#msg1211124 date=1288844621]
I think his record looks good. Why Alan Sugar doesnt rate him is probably nothing to do with his ability as a scout.

I wonder if we are going for a french manager too? Deschamps?
[/quote]

I'm thinking that Loew fits the mould perfectly.
[/quote]

Why? He is not someone who really trusts young players. The only reason he played Ozil and Khedira in the WC was because Ballack and Rolfes were injured. He was lucky to preside of the rise of the new young generation of German football, but he himself had very little to do with it.
 
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1211177#msg1211177 date=1288858402]
I don't think anybody is making the argument that continental DOF + manager system is intrinsically better than the traditional British system yes, there are mate.. There are things to be said for and against both systems and we can easily come up with examples where one system works as it's supposed to and the other leads to disaster and vice versa. A single manager in charge of transfers might lose the plot or fall into too much short-term thinking or not give enough attention to scouting and rely too much on his "gut instinct" etc. On the other hand, DOF and manager can have incompatible visions of the future of the club or incompatible personalities and that can hurt the club as well.

I don't give any credence to the list of the Rafa "rumored signings". I can judge people only on what they did, not on what they supposedly wanted. Also it's unfair on many levels to compare the list of players Comolli HAS ACTUALLY SIGNED while in Tottenham to Rafa's rumored wish list in charge of Liverpool. For one thing, Tottenham is no Real Madrid, to have actually convinced top class talents like Berbatov and Modric to come to North London is an accomplishment is not at all the same as to dream of signing Benzema and Villa. Nobody knows if Comolli would have bought Reina and Torres has he been in charge of Liverpool at the time. He bought Gomez and Bent - both quality players BTW - because those were the players that Tottenham could realistically compete for at the time. And I wouldn't use Bentley as an example of the DOF's incompetence - rather an example of a lack of communication between manager and the transfer specialist who bought an expensive player that the manager didn't need or want to use. the list of non-signings wasmerely intended to show that a manager isn't necessariyl always about the short-term, as long as he's given credit for acting in the long-term. benitez's complaints re: arsenal getting the best youngsters is pretty solid proof of that, as are ferguson's and wenger's records. so you think bentley's only problem at spurs has been his place in ramos's plans? what about redknapp's use of him? you've got no reservations about him being £15m worth of footballer?

One thing I agree with you on is that I would be wary of giving Comolli too much power over transfer policy. I actually think your suggestion of putting him in charge of just "youth recruitment", while the manager would have the final word over the rest of the transfers, might actually be not a bad idea. So far Comolli's record suggests he is a brilliant scout, but perhaps not someone with a strategic vision who is able to successfully balance short-term and long-term needs of the club.
[/quote]
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=42566.msg1211170#msg1211170 date=1288856781]
Anyways, I think it's important for us to bring in the right manager for Comolli to work with as soon as possible.
[/quote]

Agree, I think in the end it boils down to this. We will be successful only if we have a strong and smart manager who will hold his own against the DOFS, the owners, and the players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom