Do we need a manager?
Forums:
no i don't mean we should become a rudderless ship with no one at the helm but with the modern approach being a 'coach' rather than a manager appointed and then those above him buying the players and telling him to make the best out of what he's given sort of thing, is this the way forward for us perhaps? i'm opening this up for debate as there is much to ponder in my opinion such as if so who would fit the bill as a first team coach, picking the team, tactics etc but leaving the rest up to the board and also is our board good enough to buy players alone? allardyce is an old school manager, getting his hands in all the pies so to speak or at least thats the way i believe he wants to manage. pelligrini and even rogers apparently don't decide on players, its up to the board and he in turn is tasked with getting the best out of them. is this even a good approach? does it then undermine the 'coach' or does it free him from some of the stresses he doesnt need? i don't think its worked at liverpool if as i hear thats the case there because rogers has ended up working with players he can't fit into his philosophy. i guess if the man is appointed knowing exactly what the scenario is regarding his role then he can have no complaints down the line. poyet complained about this all the time yet i am sure he was aware when he went into his job no? speaking of poyet what happened to him as a contender? not long ago there was clamour for him to replace sam….






