David Weir - Moving the Goalposts?

[Darren]

Speculation of course but I would guess that the moving of the goalposts that he refers to is initially being told he was expected to change the style of play to one which would be used not only for the first team but also for all the academy teams and that he'd been given time for this change to bear fruit.

However, when his chosen approach led to relegation looking like a possibility, he was put under pressure to change his system and play 4-4-2 even though the players he (or more likely Stevenson) had recruited weren't necessarily best suited to that formation.

Pretty sure he'd have gone anyway but I think he'll have been disappointed that he wasn't allowed to stick to "the plan" - a plan which was meant to be the club's plan, not just his.

Given that said players have won 3 out of 6 since Weir departed as opposed to 1 in 13, that can't be right.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Speculation of course but I would guess that the moving of the goalposts that he refers to is initially being told he was expected to change the style of play to one which would be used not only for the first team but also for all the academy teams and that he'd been given time for this change to bear fruit.

However, when his chosen approach led to relegation looking like a possibility, he was put under pressure to change his system and play 4-4-2 even though the players he (or more likely Stevenson) had recruited weren't necessarily best suited to that formation.

Pretty sure he'd have gone anyway but I think he'll have been disappointed that he wasn't allowed to stick to "the plan" - a plan which was meant to be the club's plan, not just his.

I think clough's already proven that they can play that way.

 

[alcoblade]

Pretty sure he'd have gone anyway but I think he'll have been disappointed that he wasn't allowed to stick to "the plan" - a plan which was meant to be the club's plan, not just his.

I think you are right here, and I think this exposes the weakness in trying to pitch yourself at some extreme (Hoof V tip tap). When results go your way, you have to question if you really mean it - and we didn't. It was always unrealistic. It's a results business, and first and foremost that's what people want. Whatever they say, attendances prove this.

Our ongoing need to aplogise for what we have been brought us to this (we must swing from one extreme to the other). Other clubs, I'm sure, don't feel the need to limit themselves at the extremes in the way we have.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

Speculation of course but I would guess that the moving of the goalposts that he refers to is initially being told he was expected to change the style of play to one which would be used not only for the first team but also for all the academy teams and that he'd been given time for this change to bear fruit.

However, when his chosen approach led to relegation looking like a possibility, he was put under pressure to change his system and play 4-4-2 even though the players he (or more likely Stevenson) had recruited weren't necessarily best suited to that formation.

Pretty sure he'd have gone anyway but I think he'll have been disappointed that he wasn't allowed to stick to "the plan" - a plan which was meant to be the club's plan, not just his.

If this was his problem - and I suspect it may have been - there are two gigantic flaws in his argument:

- there is no evidence that the players he signed were suited to whatever the hell formation he was using.

- This is classic form over substance. How long would we have persisted with changing this system despite losing every week?

Weir was fired because he would not, or could not, adapt to changing circumstances. He deserved to be fired on either basis.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Suddenly some fans thought we could win the Premiership in 3 seasons.

I really don't get this.

Not wanting Sheffield United to get relegated to the Fourth Division

an expectation Champions League football.

 

[cooperblade]

I think clough's already proven that they can play that way.

He's yet to prove that, arguably, the highest profile (and most expensive?) 2 recruits can fit into the system. You could say that's down to injuries I suppose, we'll find out over the coming weeks and months.

If we thought we were going to be playing 4-4-2 all season, do you think we would've signed Baxter and Cuvelier? Hopefully it all works out but, at the moment, it looks like more short-termism and more changes to plans will cost us financially (again).

 

[Revolution]

If we thought we were going to be playing 4-4-2 all season, do you think we would've signed Baxter and Cuvelier? Hopefully it all works out but, at the moment, it looks like more short-termism and more changes to plans will cost us financially (again).

Not when the alternative is relegation. The firing of Weir will save the club millions, assuming we avoid relegation. They have said so.

 

[Darren]

I think you are right here, and I think this exposes the weakness in trying to pitch yourself at some extreme (Hoof V tip tap). When results go your way, you have to question if you really mean it - and we didn't. It was always unrealistic. It's a results business, and first and foremost that's what people want. Whatever they say, attendances prove this.

Our ongoing need to aplogise for what we have been brought us to this (we must swing from one extreme to the other). Other clubs, I'm sure, don't feel the need to limit themselves at the extremes in the way we have.

UTB

I am highly sceptical of their being any such "plan". The owners of the club don't want us to be in the fucking third division. Their "plan is to get out of the 3rd division (upwards) as quickly as possible. That's it.

They may have thought that employing someone as "cultured" as Weir would have been the best means of achieving that plan. I am pretty sure that the owners did not dictate what style of football Weir had to play. He's the professional expert. That's his job to decide.

If Weir had said to Winter or whoever "this one up front clearly isn't working, I am going to 442 and a more direct style", does anyone really think Winter would have said "no, you must stick to the plan"?

 

[Selly]

He may be right.

I'll bet no-one at the club mentioned the fact that we mustn't get relegated this season...

Now, most of us saw that as a given, Mr Weir however...

 

[cooperblade]

I am highly sceptical of their being any such "plan". The owners of the club don't want us to be in the fucking third division. Their "plan is to get out of the 3rd division (upwards) as quickly as possible. That's it.

They may have thought that employing someone as "cultured" as Weir would have been the best means of achieving that plan. I am pretty sure that the owners did not dictate what style of football Weir had to play. He's the professional expert. That's his job to decide.

If Weir had said to Winter or whoever "this one up front clearly isn't working, I am going to 442 and a more direct style", does anyone really think Winter would have said "no, you must stick to the plan"?

I think if any club proved the need for a plan, it's Sheffield United FC.

Without a plan, you're constantly trying to react to circumstances and shelling out cash you don't have as you try to move from one approach to another. It's expensive and it doesn't lead to success on the pitch.

The style of play selected is almost irrelevant, there just has to be a defined style so that one manager moves on, another can be appointed with similar beliefs in the knowledge that the squad will, largely, contain the right sort of players and wholesale changes won't be required. It makes football sense and it makes economic sense. Swansea are probably the best example of how this works (and they could've been a kick and run team, it's the long term planning and the way they've stuck to it which is impressive).

I think the club were very clear that the appointment of Weir would mean us playing his chosen style from top to bottom and recruiting first team and academy players accordingly. This was intended to be for the long term.

Getting out of the division as soon as possible isn't achieved any quicker by making the short term the priority or it certainly doesn't appear to be if you use SUFC as a case study.

 

[Darren]

I think if any club proved the need for a plan, it's Sheffield United FC.

Without a plan, you're constantly trying to react to circumstances and shelling out cash you don't have as you try to move from one approach to another. It's expensive and it doesn't lead to success on the pitch.

The style of play selected is almost irrelevant, there just has to be a defined style so that one manager moves on, another can be appointed with similar beliefs in the knowledge that the squad will, largely, contain the right sort of players and wholesale changes won't be required. It makes football sense and it makes economic sense. Swansea are probably the best example of how this works (and they could've been a kick and run team, it's the long term planning and the way they've stuck to it which is impressive).

I think the club were very clear that the appointment of Weir would mean us playing his chosen style from top to bottom and recruiting first team and academy players accordingly. This was intended to be for the long term.

Getting out of the division as soon as possible isn't achieved any quicker by making the short term the priority or it certainly doesn't appear to be if you use SUFC as a case study.

Is that right? When we changed from McEwan to Bassett and from Robson to Blackwell, there was a radical change in style and an improvement in the fortunes of the club (albeit after a relegation in Bassett's case).

The idea that a club can have a "plan" and agree on a "style" for the long term and that this will guarantee success is, I am afraid, nonsense. Not all clubs can, by definition, can be successful. Football is all about reacting to short term events and the clubs who do that most efficiently are the most successful.

 

[cooperblade]

Is that right? When we changed from McEwan to Bassett and from Robson to Blackwell, there was a radical change in style and an improvement in the fortunes of the club (albeit after a relegation in Bassett's case).

The idea that a club can have a "plan" and agree on a "style" for the long term and that this will guarantee success is, I am afraid, nonsense. Not all clubs can, by definition, can be successful. Football is all about reacting to short term events and the clubs who do that most efficiently are the most successful.

Since Warnock left, we've had no discernible plan. We've jumped from one style of play to another and had an enormous turnover players. This has been to the detriment of the club both on and off the pitch. The improvement in fortunes under Blackwell wasn't sustainable as we saw.

We can't continue to do this.

Our neighbours are a good example of how short-termism doesn't work. They came within a whisker of going bankrupt but seemingly haven't learnt from that and are now back to losing millions of pounds a year, having to borrow against the ground and having a team which can't improve year on year because it's built on loans. They bring in the likes of Fryatt and Wickham who will improve them for a while but who will leave them financially poorer and no better on the pitch when they inevitably return to their parent clubs.

We have to build towards next year and the year after that and the year after that whilst trying to get promotion. As much continuity as possible can only help in that regard.

I don't necessarily think we have to play the style of football that Weir favoured and I didn't disagree with the decision to sack him. I do think we're repeating the mistakes of the past though if we are left with expensive signings who can't get a game because of chopping and changing.

 

[Darren]

Since Warnock left, we've had no discernible plan. We've jumped from one style of play to another and had an enormous turnover players. This has been to the detriment of the club both on and off the pitch. The improvement in fortunes under Blackwell wasn't sustainable as we saw.

We can't continue to do this.

Our neighbours are a good example of how short-termism doesn't work. They came within a whisker of going bankrupt but seemingly haven't learnt from that and are now back to losing millions of pounds a year, having to borrow against the ground and having a team which can't improve year on year because it's built on loans. They bring in the likes of Fryatt and Wickham who will improve them for a while but who will leave them financially poorer and no better on the pitch when they inevitably return to their parent clubs.

We have to build towards next year and the year after that and the year after that whilst trying to get promotion. As much continuity as possible can only help in that regard.

I don't necessarily think we have to play the style of football that Weir favoured and I didn't disagree with the decision to sack him. I do think we're repeating the mistakes of the past though if we are left with expensive signings who can't get a game because of chopping and changing.

Meanwhile they are in their second year in the second tier (with all the financial advantages that will bring) whilst we flounder around at the bottom end of the third.

I would rather be in their position than ours.

 

[Pinchy]

Is that right? When we changed from McEwan to Bassett and from Robson to Blackwell, there was a radical change in style and an improvement in the fortunes of the club (albeit after a relegation in Bassett's case).

The idea that a club can have a "plan" and agree on a "style" for the long term and that this will guarantee success is, I am afraid, nonsense. Not all clubs can, by definition, can be successful. Football is all about reacting to short term events and the clubs who do that most efficiently are the most successful.

I couldn't disagree more. The nonsense is all to be found in your last sentence. Random reactions to random events giving rise to random football. It sums up the Hoof philosophy to a 't' and it's crass, anachronistic, parochial rubbish of the kind found only in S2

 

[JJ Sefton]

I couldn't disagree more. The nonsense is all to be found in your last sentence. Random reactions to random events giving rise to random football. It sums up the Hoof philosophy to a 't' and it's crass, anachronistic, parochial rubbish of the kind found only in S2

Isn't is just as possible to say that your preferred style, endless tedious passes across the box, can also be a random reaction to random events giving rise to random football?

PS If you think that Sheffield United fans are the only fans in the country who want to see their team move the ball forwards now and then you aren't really in a position to play the 'parochial' card.

 

[Darren]

I couldn't disagree more. The nonsense is all to be found in your last sentence. Random reactions to random events giving rise to random football. It sums up the Hoof philosophy to a 't' and it's crass, anachronistic, parochial rubbish of the kind found only in S2

The only thing that guarantees success in football is ooodles of money. We don't and will never have oodles of money. That means that we, like every other club apart from 4 or 5, will have ups and downs. We will never hit on a plan that turns us into Man Utd or Arsenal. We have to react to events that, will, temorarily, give us an edge. Sticking to an inflexible 10 year plan or whatever will just inspire mediocrity.

You and I are old enough to remember that Derby and Leicester were touted in the 90's as models for us to follow and that Palace were the "team of the eighties". They have all had their ups and downs since then. I would put a large amount of money that, in 10 years time, Swansea will not be in the top tier and everyone will have forgotten that everyone salivated over them in 2013.

 

[super_pig]

Isn't is just as possible to say that your preferred style, endless tedious passes across the box, can also be a random reaction to random events giving rise to random football?

did he actually say that??
btw Pinchy its not only S2 where this is happening.. personally i'd prefer a pass and move style because it is the most successful option.. even relative to this level as regards available players etc

 

[Pedro Verde]

Meanwhile they are in their second year in the second tier (with all the financial advantages that will bring) whilst we flounder around at the bottom end of the third.

I would rather be in their position than ours.

I wouldnt Manaric is wanting to sell and whilst ever that is happening there is no stability
Mandaric doesnt want to spend a penny more than he has to thats why they are relying on the loan market he and many pig fans will be extremely happy if they finish 4th bottom of the Championship, whilst we cant compete with that, until Mandaric goes that will be their ultimate aim, win the relegation battle at least we can think that the only way is up. As far as I can see for the pigs they will be in limbo bottom 6 Championship or they will get relegated to L1

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Speculation of course but I would guess that the moving of the goalposts that he refers to is initially being told he was expected to change the style of play to one which would be used not only for the first team but also for all the academy teams and that he'd been given time for this change to bear fruit.

However, when his chosen approach led to relegation looking like a possibility, he was put under pressure to change his system and play 4-4-2 even though the players he (or more likely Stevenson) had recruited weren't necessarily best suited to that formation.

Pretty sure he'd have gone anyway but I think he'll have been disappointed that he wasn't allowed to stick to "the plan" - a plan which was meant to be the club's plan, not just his.

It's an interesting suggestion but if that is Weir's gripe then it's still severely flawed.

For starters I don't think that he (and Stevenson) recruited many players suited to Weir's preferred system. Taylor and Bunn weren't suited to playing up front on their own. He signed three players for defensive central midfield and only ever played one of them at a time (Cuvelier, Coady, McGinn). He said himself that his preferred system relied on two good attacking full backs. We didn't have any and he didn't sign any until the very end (Lappin).

Even though he signed 13 players, the most he ever picked was around 4 or 5 at a time. For the most part, he relied on Wilson's signings, particularly in defence, who have proved before and since that they are more suited to playing 4-4-2.

It's all very well saying that all the top clubs play 4-2-3-1 now and therefore so should we. What he didn't take into account is that the front 4 of the very top clubs are such good players they can carve open defences without much support. Our front 4 didn't have the necessary ability and accuracy of passing to do that and therefore we created few chances.

The other way that the top clubs playing 4-2-3-1 create chances is via the aforementioned good attacking full backs. Weir started off in that vein with Westlake and Williams but when he realised they can't defend he reverted to the safe option of McMahon and Hill. Again, not enough attacking quality to create chances hence the pitiful goals/shots per game records.

Weir's preferred system isn't suited to League One, his existing players weren't suited to the system and neither were most of the players he signed. It wasn't a lack of time that scuppered Weir's plan it was the plan itself and the poor execution of it.

 

[cooperblade]

The only thing that guarantees success in football is ooodles of money. We don't and will never have oodles of money. That means that we, like every other club apart from 4 or 5, will have ups and downs. We will never hit on a plan that turns us into Man Utd or Arsenal. We have to react to events that, will, temorarily, give us an edge. Sticking to an inflexible 10 year plan or whatever will just inspire mediocrity.

I can't imagine any United fan over the age of about 12 thinks we'll ever become a Man U or an Arsenal.

Any club who can average 30,000 fans in the top flight does have a fair amount of potential though. My view is that the best chance of achieving that potential is to have a clearly defined strategy that covers all parts of the club, not least because that's the most efficient use of the money we do have.

 

[Darren]

I can't imagine any United fan over the age of about 12 thinks we'll ever become a Man U or an Arsenal.

Any club who can average 30,000 fans in the top flight does have a fair amount of potential though. My view is that the best chance of achieving that potential is to have a clearly defined strategy that covers all parts of the club, not least because that's the most efficient use of the money we do have.

In my view, the only plan the owners need is to appoint a competent manager and let him get on with it. We got to the PL 30K by doing that.

All this stuff about being associated with a certain playing style all the way through the club is just guff.

 

[cooperblade]

In my view, the only plan the owners need is to appoint a competent manager and let him get on with it. We got to the PL 30K by doing that.

All this stuff about being associated with a certain playing style all the way through the club is just guff.

So if we had, let's say, Tony Pulis running our first team and Brendan Rodgers running our academy, you don't think we'd have any issues with integrating academy players into the first team?

 

[JohnDenver]

All this stuff about being associated with a certain playing style all the way through the club is just guff.

But it's not... Continuity of method throughout the club and over time is a good thing. It costs nothing and potentially saves a fortune.

As for what that style should be, I just can't be arsed to rake that up again.

 

[Darren]

So if we had, let's say, Tony Pulis running our first team and Brendan Rodgers running our academy, you don't think we'd have any issues with integrating academy players into the first team?

We might. When we appoint youth coaches, I assume the manager gets a say in that. That should obviate any such problems.

 

[Darren]

But it's not... Continuity of method throughout the club and over time is a good thing. It costs nothing and potentially saves a fortune.

As for what that style should be, I just can't be arsed to rake that up again.

So given that Bassett took us to 9th in the top tier in 1992, I assume we should be continuing with his style now

 

[JohnDenver]

So given that Bassett took us to 9th in the top tier in 1992, I assume we should be continuing with his style now

With that leap of logic I've just removed your law firm from my address book.

 

[Darren]

With that leap of logic I've just removed your law firm from my address book.

How so? You said we should have "continuity of method... over time". I assumed that you would want us to continue with the method that was the most successful in recent history.

 

[JohnDenver]

How so? You said we should have "continuity of method... over time". I assumed that you would want us to continue with the method that was the most successful in recent history.

Already answered:

As for what that style should be, I just can't be arsed to rake that up again.

 

[cooperblade]

We might. When we appoint youth coaches, I assume the manager gets a say in that. That should obviate any such problems.

When the manager came into the chairman's office to have said say, wouldn't he be told "piss off, all this stuff about being associated with a certain playing style all the way through the club is just guff"?

 

[Selly]

How so? You said we should have "continuity of method... over time". I assumed that you would want us to continue with the method that was the most successful in recent history.

I'm not sure that in footballing terms 20+ years ago should be considered "recent history". The game has moved on.