banduan wrote:
Coombs wrote:
It's a good way to break the lithification of the game and to avoid being held hostage to the old guard and their cronies. Reward doesn't come without risk and all that.
yes. Especially since the guy who set us on our way down was also our best ever manager and most experienced.
IMO the management structure and playing style are massive factors in this.
Firstly how much of the decision making is centralised with the manager and how much is retained by the club.
Similarly how much of the playing style can be replicated if the manager is removed from the equation for whatever reason.
AW is the ultimate example of the former whereby he retained 'total control' of the football operations on and off the pitch, and his playing style based upon 'player intuition' was unique in top flight. In both sides of the equation the club was more likely to 'fail' following the departure of AW as not, because he was the focus.
The Chapman Era offers a similar example of the first part, with Chapman being the first 'manager as god' and having total control as later became the norm. However his playing style was able to be replicated by the club, following an internal promotion for successive managers to maintain both the style and success that dominated for a decade and was only broken by the intervention of WW2. The success and longevity of the model was only later bettered by the LFC Boot Room Era from Shankly to Roy Evans/GH.
Barca have tried to replicate the Internal DNA model with Cruyff as the template in terms of establishing the club DNA, and with managerial appointments familiar with this from time at the club as former players. As such Arteta is a potential future managerial candidate, and more so if his preferred playing formation and style meets those expectations.
