Is Bruno Lage A Good Manager Or Should He Go?

[YoungWolf]

Tony Roberts IN

 

[Tony Towner]

You'll have to elaborate if you want me to draw a different conclusion from that tbh.

I know it's Mark, but you know what he means. Bruno Lage is a problem, he's not the only one and probably not the biggest

 

[Alan]

I know it's Mark, but you know what he means. Bruno Lage is a problem, he's not the only one and probably not the biggest

Read to me like he's suggesting not sacking Bruno because it won't take care of the bigger problems.

Which, he's not wrong, but that doesn't mean I think it should stop us from curing the ills we can (even if a bigger cancer is the one calling the shots).

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I know it's Mark, but you know what he means. Bruno Lage is a problem, he's not the only one and probably not the biggest

He's the easiest one to fix though.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

You'll have to elaborate if you want me to draw a different conclusion from that tbh.

So there were no issues before Lage arrived? He's the sole reason for the slow, conservative, offensively inefficient football? These players don't have any input on that?

 

[Alan]

So there were no issues before Lage arrived? He's the sole reason for the slow, conservative, offensively inefficient football? These players don't have any input on that?

Sure there were, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But either Bruno's tactics are shit, or he's spectacularly shit at getting his ideas across. Either way, he bears fault.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

So there were no issues before Lage arrived? He's the sole reason for the slow, conservative, offensively inefficient football? These players don't have any input on that?

He's not, we have a lot of underlying problems, ranging from the squad becoming a bit stagnant to the overall approach of the ownership and all points in between.

He is not a very good manager though and the way he speaks is honestly dreadful, he'll never do anything after he leaves us.

 

[The Bion]

The 20 minutes today are a credit to Trincao and Chiqi, not Bruno.

4-2-4 is not sustainable, and our Plan A is still, uh, bad.

4-2-4, no. 4-2-3-1 is doable - Nuno was making a half decent fist of it before Sideshow Bob nearly killed Raul.

 

[Alan]

4-2-4, no. 4-2-3-1 is doable - Nuno was making a half decent fist of it before Sideshow Bob nearly killed Raul.

Hard to draw concrete conclusions about 4-2-3-1 as we didn't play that formation today.

 

[The Bion]

At times it was vaguely similar. Chiq and Hwang wide, Trincao drifting in and around the centre.

I'm not advocating that particular lineup (as we've seen recurring issues with 2/3 of those players all season) but work Neto in and maybe Cundle, or Moutinho pushed further forward instead of Donck, and maybe you have something.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Sure there were, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But either Bruno's tactics are shit, or he's spectacularly shit at getting his ideas across. Either way, he bears fault.

Why is the difference between a coaches ideas and the end product always the coaches fault? Why is it never the players responsible for the breakdown?

You can only get out of people what they're capable of doing and/or willing to do. Magic isn't real, you can't just click your fingers and make things happen, sometimes the potential just isn't there.

That's where it becomes a decision for the higher ups, if that's the genuine conflict then who do they want to side with? Swapping the coach is easier but if the players are the bigger obstacle then you're not going to see any real change in what went before are you?

We saw similar when Solbakken came in, went a completely different direction with a coach and it was completely at odds with the squads capabilities.

 

[Deano]

Why is the difference between a coaches ideas and the end product always the coaches fault? Why is it never the players responsible for the breakdown?

You can only get out of people what they're capable of doing and/or willing to do. Magic isn't real, you can't just click your fingers and make things happen, sometimes the potential just isn't there.

That's where it becomes a decision for the higher ups, if that's the genuine conflict then who do they want to side with? Swapping the coach is easier but if the players are the bigger obstacle then you're not going to see any real change in what went before are you?

We saw similar when Solbakken came in, went a completely different direction with a coach and it was completely at odds with the squads capabilities.

Given that we aren't going to all of a sudden get loads of external funding it would be pretty difficult to change the bulk of the playing squad quickly so good managers have to get the best out of what they have, while they transition to players who can do what they want, over time.

I'd have been less bothered about Lages performance if we were inconsistent, but you could see gradual change to a better style but I don't think we have seen anywhere near enough evidence that things are changing for the better.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Given that we aren't going to all of a sudden get loads of external funding it would be pretty difficult to change the bulk of the playing squad quickly so good managers have to get the best out of what they have, while they transition to players who can do what they want, over time.

I'd have been less bothered about Lages performance if we were inconsistent, but you could see gradual change to a better style but I don't think we have seen anywhere near enough evidence that things are changing for the better.

Well he's had the results to survive the start of the transition, it all comes down the the higher ups' appetite for change and their faith in Lage as the one to see it through.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I've railed against people just repeating "we're 8th" as an argument of late because it glosses over so much, but I actually think that is the mindset of the owners. They don't pay that much attention so they'll think we're doing fine.

 

[oldgold coast]

I've railed against people just repeating "we're 8th" as an argument of late because it glosses over so much, but I actually think that is the mindset of the owners. They don't pay that much attention so they'll think we're doing fine.

yes we have issues but which club , outside of man city and liverpool, dont? off hand i cant think of many clubs who have come into the premiership and had the results we have had. Of course fosun will think they ( and wolves) are doing fine. I am not convinced they are wrong.

 

[Tredman]

Being happy with poor performances and outperforming them in league position only leads one way - ask a stoke fan.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Being happy with poor performances and outperforming them in league position only leads one way - ask a stoke fan.

I'd hope no-one at the club is happy with the performances but the results do provide breathing space, the club hasn't been in any real threat of relegation at any point so far since they change the manager.

The performances though have shown there's unlikely to be an easy transition to a significantly different style of play with the current combination of coaching staff and playing squad. So for me it comes down to where the board's loyalties lie, do they have more faith in the squad or the coaching team?

If they back the coach 100% and he's maybe told them the squad are less receptive to or capable of change than first though maybe the board accept the transition will be more costly and time consuming. They'll maybe then look on this season as little more than a familiarisation period, now everyone knows where they stand and what needs to be done they can crack on with some real change. Then I'd expect next season they'll expect to see some more obvious signs of transition in the playing style along with maintaining an acceptable points haul.

If however they're siding with the playing squad you'd expect the coaching team to already be under great scrutiny. Results been on the decline for a fairly prolonged period now, aesthetics never been great all season, doesn't speak volumes for the coach if they think the squad is fine.

This season has just bought the experiment time that couldn't be afforded when a similar situation arose under Morgan and Solbakken. Now it's down to the board to pick a side and plough on in that direction.

 

[AndyWolves]

Fwiw I thought stoke only starting getting into trouble when they tried to change the way they played

 

[Tredman]

Fwiw I thought stoke only starting getting into trouble when they tried to change the way they played

Not according to most of my mates, they said the best times they had in the prem were with Hughes. Certainly they had their highest finished with him - 9th twice (or possibly thrice I think).

 

[prawnking]

I agree with much of the criticism of Lage and the club in general lately, not so much the vitriol, and I think some people are just winding themselves up a bit now

It's good to see patterns, look at possible scenarios and sustainability of our play etc, but it's surely better to keep criticism proportionate?

Bruno may well be the wrong man, we may very well struggle with him at the helm next season and it may be the start of a huge decline, but what's to be gained acting almost as if it's actually already happened? We all know football isn't quite that predictable