It's time for a leap of faith

[Mitja]

I agree with your last point tak. imo media comments shouldn't have as much influence on changing morale as they have now, especially not since we don't have the ability to talk directly to our players. I'm not saying it shouldn't in cases like when you openly critique certain player for his performances etc. but managers often have one answer for media and different one for the team. it would be nice to see the interaction ability to expand a little.

also I agree that 'pick the right answer' and it's repitingness doesn't add much to the game.

[tak]

I think we have reached some very important conclusions to date.

For me it can be summed up to: Although elements of a player's personality are in the game, it is a "feature" that appears only during a match. Furthermore, interactions of personalities and personalities with external factors are not taken into account.

If I were to judge what th players are doing between matches I would say:

- They go to training, where they do not talk to other players or the manager.

- They live in a world where nothing happens or nothing affects them.

- They don't have feelings other than sadness and happiness. Those two feelings are affected by games' results and the manager's comments in the papers. (oh, sometimes, they don't like a fellow player. How did they interact with him is unknown)

- They learn about the plan of action for the next match, one minute before it begins and they also get a pep talk then.

These are the reasons why the manager in FM is basically a very knowledgable person, who sometimes speaks to the press.

The experiment I would like to conduct is a hypothetical one and i would like everyone to answer.

Take the number one expert in football tactics in the world, an academic who has devoted his life reading about tactics. If you assign this person as manager to a big premier team and give him the database of attributes etc., you would expect he will be using some fantastic tactics, full of ingenuity and creativity.

Let us, on the other hand take a great manager. Just because you love computers I will take Mr. Jobs. Now, he is to business what our expert is to tactics. Let us also assume he knows nill about football, no attributes, no pyramids, no nothing. Let us assign Jobs to the exact same team in a parallel universe.

Who will get the sack first?

[djwilko6]

Mr Jobs will get the sack first of course.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Tak, just to clarify, do you mean putting them in charge of an actual real-life club, or sitting them down in front of FM2010 ?

If it's the former, I would say Steve Jobs would get the boot first. If it's the latter, I'd say he would probably survive the longer.

[tak]

of an actual real life club yes. So two votes against Mr Jobs...

[Tomer]

Mr. Jobs won't last too long. He's out before Christmas!

[robbert_o154]

Depends on how well the assman manages to explain to him what offside means.

[SCIAG]

It would be realised early on that Mr Jobs was a complete numpty and he'd be sacked.

[Blaupunkt]

im sure tak will tell everyone that "Mr.Jobs" will not get the sack first and probably be in the job for the next 25 years having, unparalleled success and going on to be come the greatest manager the world has ever seen, but of course i could be wrong and in the real world "Mr.Jobs" would be sacked after a couple of months, as would the idiot who thought it would be a good idea to appoint the manager of his local asda to run the football club!

[Heisenberg]

tak, I think it's been established above that we accept that the man management nature of the game is important and in FM that it would be good to see it expanded and worked on, but you're never going to get the forum to agree that tactics don't matter and the focus of the game will likely always remain on the footballing aspects of the job, not the man management.

I personally think that after the advances made with the tactical interface have been successful that the next step is to advance and expand the player and press interaction, and feel it would be constructive to discuss realistic steps to be made in these areas. Events on the scale of the one given in your Ronaldinho example are impossible with the computers currently in use if the game is to remain a football managment sim, but I too would like to see more explanations of player problems and ways to deal with them. The question is; what would you like to see put in?. What is your "Leap of faith"?

[Almondo]

I'd have to say that Mr. Jobs would get the sack first. however tak myself and others are still waiting to see what your "Leap of Faith" is going to be. Although I don't think we'll be holding our breath for it.

[edgar555]

Tak still going on. And on. And on.

Even my 3 y o sister can tell you that Jobs would get the boot first.

[robbert_o154]

Not so in this "hypothetical experiment" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), probably.

[wwfan]

This thread is becoming increasingly bizarre, especially with the Steve Jobs reference. Jobs was ousted from Apple because he was unwilling to reign in development and innovation and concentrate on what Peters and Waterman would have categorised as 'excellent management'. Two of the three people that followed him were 'cross industry "excellent" managers' with the other being an internal appointment. All three successfully and successively drove Apple into the ground.

When Jobs was reappointed, he focused on the core principles of the business as he had envisioned it, which were practices of innovation and design. The hard-culture managerialism was replaced by total immersion into the requirements of the specific industry. He basically ignored generic principles of management in order to focus on the practices specific to the industry sector.

Jobs, who is often described as an egomaniac, manages by force of personality coupled with complete immersion into and deep knowledge of the industries with which he is involved. He is as far removed from he archetypal 'good manager possessing excellent "managerial" skills as defined by populist managerial literature' as it is possible to be.

In football management terms, this is akin to immersing the players in the technical, tactical and historical knowledge of their trade and trusting that strategic advantage would follow, the antithesis of 'generic, MBA-style' management, which assumes management skills are cross-industrial.

For examples of how 'excellent cross-industrial management' works you need look no further than Apple between Jobs' stints or Hewlett Packard post 1999. You could also look at the lack of improvement/total collapse of many of the companies originally categorised as being 'excellently managed' in the seminal research (Peters and Waterman, Deal and Kennedy, Ouchi et al) that defined modern theories of management. Without immersion into the specific requirements of the trade, generic managers have a strong tendency towards failure. However, the cult of the 'excellent' CEO tends to obscure this fact.

As much as I'd like to see FM grow in richness, this thread is seeming increasingly pointless given the almost total lack of knowledge of the game's mechanics, strategies of football and real life history, practices, theories and examples of management from the OP. Assuming the OP's response to this being 'good management is not what the populist literature says it', I'd like to pre-empt the criticism by asking, once again, what is good management? If it is what Steve Jobs does, it is total immersion into industry specifics, which, translated to football, means knowing tactics to the nth degree. If it isn't, then why have you given Jobs as an example of good management, as it sits in complete opposition to everything you've said is important about management so far? Or are we just talking about charisma, which Jobs has in spades, being the only important element of management?

[Cougar2010]

Interesting, personally I can't believe you are all going for Mr Jobs to go first as it really isn't that clear cut.

First off tak's example just wouldn't happen as no-one with no clue of football would ever get the job.

Taking the two examples that tak wants to compare:

1. Tactical expert but lacking motivation & man management skills.

Has the knowledge and knows what he wants to do on the pitch but struggles to get the players to perform. They lack motivation and bicker which leads to divides within the club. The club underperforms and ultimately the manager is sacked.

2. Mr Jobs

Motivates the players, keeps them happy, there is a togetherness about the club. They give 110% on the pitch and support their manager.

Which gets the sack first?

Who knows but the answer isn't clear cut.

[Blaupunkt]

well i have to say i didnt know who Mr.Jobs was, but it does not make any difference, while he might know "business" very well he does not know football and how football works, while it is still "management" it is very different to the type of thing Mr.Jobs knows so well.

you only have to look at successful business man who have brought football clubs in real life and have admitted that its not like any business they have ran before, they usually go on to sell the club a few years later after cutting their losses, if it was so easy why dont these guys appoint them selves as managers also. In fact a good example, Michael Knighton who tried to buy Man UTD but the deal fell through then took over Carlisle United, after the 1997-98 season he sacked the manager and tried to do it him self but if i remember rightly failed miserably.

@couger2010: unless i am missing something nowhere does TAK say this hypothetical footballing tactical expert is lacking in motivation or man management skills, so i am not sure where you get your 2 examples from.

the expert from the football world could be anyone from Terry Venables, Sir Alex Ferguson, guus hiddink, Giovanni Trapattoni etc etc.

[HammerDaFanBois]

This thread is becoming increasingly bizarre

...

Yeah, but look on the bright side. It gave you an excuse to post paragraph upon paragraph of twaddle...

[wwfan]

Yeah, but look on the bright side. It gave you an excuse to post paragraph upon paragraph of twaddle...

Yes, because knowledge of your subject matter is always useless, isn't it.

I hope you don't mind me posting you rather nice PM here as well to illustrate just how little of this thread you've understood. Don't worry, I'll remove the abusive bit.

If you really think anything an MBA teaches you is relevant to controlling the results of a set of functions (the match engine) then you are deluded.

I believe I was arguing the opposite and that generic management techniques don't much help football managers and that a deep immersion into football is important to real life football management and thus virtual football management. Other generic management techniques are useful but are not core to the business of football management in the same way in depth knowledge of football is. Tak's ideas, while interesting, are a form of managerial firefighting akin to MBA-style 'management by case studies', which I don't think captures the essence of any form of management, let alone football management.

Given I make my living out of researching and teaching this stuff (plus providing the conceptual design of the tactical creator), I thought perhaps it would have relevance to the debate on what might make a better and more realistic football management simulation. However, given that some seem to believe ignorance of managerial theory, practice and history carries more weight than a career in the field and/or that my knowledge is 'twaddle', I'll butt out. I'd prefer quality debate, but perhaps that is asking too much.

[Almondo]

I believe I was arguing the opposite and that generic management techniques don't much help football managers and that a deep immersion into football is important to real life football management and thus virtual football management.

This has summed up everything that has been posted in this thread especially over the last couple of pages as well as anything that tak has posted.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Interesting, personally I can't believe you are all going for Mr Jobs to go first as it really isn't that clear cut.

...

Taking the two examples that tak wants to compare:

1. Tactical expert but lacking motivation & man management skills.

Ahhh, but Tak didn't actually state that the tactical expert also lacks motivation & man management skills....

Take the number one expert in football tactics in the world, an academic who has devoted his life reading about tactics.

Not all academics are social-misfits you know...

[RBKalle]

So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

[wwfan]

So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

Tell me about it. It's the bane of management research and management practice. I recommend Mintzberg's 'Managers not MBAs' for anyone who wants a good overview of the problems. Very relevant to the debate we've had in this thread.

[tak]

So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

This is a very good observation. It is bizzare how we came to talk about MBA qualifications. I think it has something to do with what wwfan is teaching at school. Who knows?

To dismiss charismatic leaders, is to dismiss the history of mankind. However, they were also the product of the environment they lived in. And indeed, they didn't lead just by charisma, they had a good knowledge of their subject.

Going back to the game, I think the main question is: Should real life interactions (what people call man-management, but a lot more than that) be simulated by a few questions and answers? If we want to make the game richer, is it a matter of adding more questions and more answers? No.

The match engine is a very good example of how attributes and instructions are combined to create a realistic football match.

If a similar engine was built to simulate the interactions of people between themselves and the environment, we would come closer to what football actually is. The decision to build that is a leap of faith, as opposed to the easy route of adding a few more actions for the virtual manager.

[wwfan]

Nobody has dismissed charismatic managers with a good knowledge of their field. Stand up Jose Mourinho. What we are questioning is whether skilled managers (i.e. managers who know management theory and have some generic managerial experience) with no knowledge of the field can do a good job. This assumption is what MBA programmes are built on and seems to be what you are claiming is what makes a great football manager, certainly above and beyond knowledge of specific footballing strategies.

Or have I got it wrong?

If this is the case, then you want the scenario or case-style management problems you've outlined to become core to the game for high level managers, with actual knowledge of the industry becoming less important. FM should thus become a game in which tactics and strategy become less important as you progress, even though they are the reasons for your progression?

It seems you want an engine that produces motivational case-style management problems with linear right/wrong, black/white solutions? Once more, this is MBA-speak masquerading as management. Or do you wish for a Sims-style virtual environment in which you can see the manager making friends, watching training, dealing with a player having girlfriend issues?

[tak]

A skilled manager with no knowledge of the field will do a better job than a knowledgable person who has no experience or knowledge of management. The reason is that a skilled manager will get the results needed, using any and every weapon in his arsenal (including consulting a tactician to make up for his handicap, until he eventualy learns, because no doubt football knowledge is needed). The professor is not result orientated, has no idea how to apply his knowledge in a real life situation and it will take longer to learn to manage, probably collapsing in the process. But this is an theoretical example as it would never happen IRL.

My "case study", as you call it, was just an example to show how complicated real football is. I do not want any of that in the game (well, maybe just players' sponsors, a huge force in football at the moment).

Tell me though, do you think external factors or the manager's character have nothing to do with success?

[iacovone]

Bloody hell is this thread still rambling on?

[crouchaldinho]

Bloody hell is this thread still rambling on?

Apparently so, although I'm not sure how? :confused:

[iacovone]

Let me guess.

He still hasn't offered one idea?

Everyone is still trying to convince him that tactics ARE a big part of a manager's role?

And he's still retorting in a condescending manner?

What? I got all 3 right? Amazing

[LSS]

I think that FM focuses too much on tweaking tactics for INDIVIDUAL matches.

I don't claim to know anything about real management, but my gut feeling is that...

A) Manager should establish the base playing philosophy for the team. NOT for individual matches. This should be something that the players train and practice. Something that doesn't change for the next match unless something happens that breaks it (injury crisis, etc.).

Pretty much what the tactics creator does now.

B) Manager should establish the playing style for individual players. "You can't even hit the stadium with your long shots, so don't do it!"

What I'm aiming for is... Player Specific instructions... NOT position specific. And when a player is told to do this or that long enough (depending on how well he adapts to things), it becomes his "preferred" move". (For example, how Guardiola has changed Keita)

C) Simulating realistic relationships between players and between players and the manager requires way too advanced AI to feasible in years to come.

[RBKalle]

Good points LSS.

In this very thread I had been advocating Individual Player's instruction over the current "positional instructions no matter who you field in that position", but it got lost in the whole MBA crapfest.

My 4-4-2 diamond might have my first choice Box-to-Box MC shoot from distance, or passing through balls, but if I substitute him, for whatever reason, with a hard-working but banana-footed benchwarmer, I don't want to go through the whole tactical editing of his duty.

Just to revert back to the old one later one.

Instead every player should have his OWN role, and the Green Dot should be awarded accordingly...

Gennaro Gattuso and Steven Gerrard are both Green Dot MC, but I can't surely expect them to be "Accomplished" at the other's role/duty.

That's the first and foremost tweak I'd like to have in FM2011...

P.S. a quick reply to the MBA thingie... A charismatic leader with zero knowledge/experience will fail, much worse than a non-charismatic but competent manager.

Otherwise, Mourinho could just land a fat contract with a NBA or NFL team... After all the guy can speak English and is charismatic.

Then who cares if he can't tell a Guard from a Playmaker or if he doesn't know the difference between Shot-Gun and I Formations.

I can't believe some people buy into such crap... Motivation, leadership and whatnot are fine, but KNOWLEDGE and COMPETENCE can't be done without.

[tak]

I think that FM focuses too much on tweaking tactics for INDIVIDUAL matches.

I don't claim to know anything about real management, but my gut feeling is that...

A) Manager should establish the base playing philosophy for the team. NOT for individual matches. This should be something that the players train and practice. Something that doesn't change for the next match unless something happens that breaks it (injury crisis, etc.).

Pretty much what the tactics creator does now.

B) Manager should establish the playing style for individual players. "You can't even hit the stadium with your long shots, so don't do it!"

What I'm aiming for is... Player Specific instructions... NOT position specific. And when a player is told to do this or that long enough (depending on how well he adapts to things), it becomes his "preferred" move". (For example, how Guardiola has changed Keita)

C) Simulating realistic relationships between players and between players and the manager requires way too advanced AI to feasible in years to come.

The issues you touched are very similar to what me and others have voiced above, before Mr. MBA stroke again to destroy a fine conversation.

I said above that at the moment, the players go to training where they don't meet their manager. Tactics are not learned in training but are set 5 minutes before the game with many players changing positions from match to match with minimal problems.

I cannot believe that talented managers who has spent decades in the job, produces a revolutionary tactic every Sunday, as some people will have as think. In sports, success comes with repetition and hard work. To endure those, the player has to be mentaly strong, and there is the role of the manager.

Strong teams are built through hard work, and the manager's role is not just to assign a formation or a position's tasks but to manage the players as they are working and adjusting their play to his instructions.

We seem to be so baffled by the Pyramids and other marvelous publications that we have lost touch with reality. We envision the good football manager as someone who changes the tactical instructions every week. Of course, certain instructions are given for every opponent but the main talent of a football manager is to keep the players focussed for long periods of time. This is a lot harder than some people think.

Great teams and great tactics are formed through training and focus. When I said tactics are as important part of a manager's job as some characters will have us think, this is what I meant. The football manager is not some bespactacled teacher with hairy ears who gives long speeches about the evolution of tactics. The football manager knows football but more often than not, he is not reinventing the wheel. He keeps a steady pace of work and focus in place. This is the hard stuff. To make intelligent remarks about pyramids while reading the history of 4-4-2 is easy.

[SCIAG]

Nobody produces a revolutionary tactic every Sunday, and indeed changing your tactic every week in FM will only lose you marks.

Inverting The Pyramid focuses very much on moves that were taught in training and practiced to death. It also emphasises how the shape of the formation is important.

Nobody has denied that man management is important. However, when it comes down to it, the larger effect on the outcome of a match is tactics. It may not earn you 3-0 wins every week, but a good tactical set up is the difference between three or four places, at least, in the league table. If your tactic exploits a certain weakness in the opposition tactics, you could play far above the sum of the player's abilities. One player with his head in the clouds will have a detrimental effect, but not one as large as unsuitable tactics.

Yes, man management is important, and the best managers will be great man managers, but unless you know a way of getting your players to win football matches, they can be as determined as they like, they won't win as often.

[Matt123456]

I cannot believe this thread is still going. It has become so pointless now that it must be closed. I almost wish we could give Tak an ultimatum to put some ideas forward, but whether you put it in bold, large font, underline it or put in itallics he still ignores it and rambles on in the smug self-satisfied way of someone who believes he is always right and even those who are a lot, lot, lot cleverer than him and have more knowledge are wrong

I don't even know why I'm posting because I'll just get abused or ignored, but I'm going to take the bait. Tak stop preaching or instructing or "leading a seminar" or whatever else you want to call the rubbish that you post. Put down some ideas or go away. I am actually quite interested in whether you actually have any ideas or you want to just start a conversation/argument. I'm thinking the latter.

[tak]

Put down some ideas or go away. .

I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

[Matt123456]

I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

What do you mean where does it come from? You talk about a leap of faith then you don't even give any ideas about what that leap of faith could be. I mean ideas that could be incorporated in FM and that could work with current technology. Then you go insult anyone who dares to differ from your point of view. It is quite annoying.

[bigdunk]

I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

It comes from you coming on here, demanding big improvements and then expecting everybody else to do the work. You either have some idea what you want to happen (in which case, post it so we can discuss it properly), or you don't have a clue (in which case, why are you even posting?).

[RBKalle]

Managers do not lay down a brand new tactic every week, but if you [tak] seriously think you can show up with your clueless 3-4-3 at Nou Camp and win, just thanks to a brilliant piece of motivation, with pats on the back, hugs and cheers, then you're so off target it's not worth it discussing anymore.

Drop the MBA nonsensical bollocks, and focus on the "leap of faith" you advocated, while you forgot to provide a single FEASIBLE proposition besides the "we need more mental motivation! more! MORE I TELL YOU!" without even hinting a way it could be done.

Others, me included, tried to give some constructive input, while you're now stuck in this loop about Pyramids and motivational manure which has no place here.

Just keep it FM and football related, and try at Herbalife or Amway if you want to put into use your MBA mumbo-jumbo

Sorry if it comes out blunt, but this thread had potential, and still has it. Seeing it ruined by a silly OT is a shame.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Sorry if it comes out blunt, but this thread had potential, and still has it. Seeing it ruined by a silly OT is a shame.

I agree.

For instance, I think this was a fair and reasonable question....

Going back to the game, I think the main question is: Should real life interactions (what people call man-management, but a lot more than that) be simulated by a few questions and answers? If we want to make the game richer, is it a matter of adding more questions and more answers?

Personally I agree with you there, that ultimately to take the interactions between players/managers/staff/press etc. to the "next level" that it's simply not enough to just add more questions/answers to the existing system.

Sadly though Tak, I think you have far too many people lining up just to take pot-shots at you (deservedly or not), that you might struggle to get this thread to move away from all the previous name-calling and pigtail-pulling...

[djwilko6]

that you might struggle to get this thread to move away from all the previous name-calling and pigtail-pulling...

You mean the things that only tak himself has been doing with his veiled insults? (like "teacher", "professor", calling people who reply to him as drunk, mocking what wwfan does for his job, need I go on?)

[tak]

This is just an internet forum, we have plenty of time and I can repeat as many times as needed: I never said anything about MBA. The ancient teacher started that talk and because it seems it's his last weapon, he is going to stick with it. Fair enough.

It is not strange that the moaners have no agenda whatsoever other than stop this thread. But why are they so negative? It is because this thread puts their tactical waffle in its place. Which is in the pub or (in their case) the school yard. Well, I apologise, I really do, but this tactical hyperanalysis is just a bubble.

But let us go back to the subject:

A few people have mention the complete detachment of the virtual manager from his players as well as the inability to built a team in FM like a real manager would do. That is, keep the players focused and content while they are working in training repeating tactical instructions that, of course, he gave. So, the manager has to solve all outside and inside problems that could affect that focus and at the same time deal with the board, the fans, the agends, the sponsors, the press etc. For high achieving teams, the effort of simultaneously inspiring the players and getting the best out of everyone, is tremendous.

This is called management, it has nothing to do with an MBA qualification (it never had), and it is what separates the men from the boys. Any teenager can think of a brand new fantastic way Wenger could utilise his players. I am sure some of the angry posters, think of 20 every day. But make it work? I'd like to see some trying.

Now, I understand the little knitting club of "tactical experts" that reign in this forum are upset. Look, lads, no need for crying. Why can you not just go elsewhere and talk about how many clicks of closing down was Ajax using in the 70s?

Squirmy Rooter I am coming back to talk about what you mentioned...

[Cleon]

This is just an internet forum, we have plenty of time and I can repeat as many times as needed: I never said anything about MBA. The ancient teacher started that talk and because it seems it's his last weapon, he is going to stick with it. Fair enough.

It is not strange that the moaners have no agenda whatsoever other than stop this thread. But why are they so negative? It is because this thread puts their tactical waffle in its place. Which is in the pub or (in their case) the school yard. Well, I apologise, I really do, but this tactical hyperanalysis is just a bubble.

But let us go back to the subject:

A few people have mention the complete detachment of the virtual manager from his players as well as the inability to built a team in FM like a real manager would do. That is, keep the players focused and content while they are working in training repeating tactical instructions that, of course, he gave. So, the manager has to solve all outside and inside problems that could affect that focus and at the same time deal with the board, the fans, the agends, the sponsors, the press etc. For high achieving teams, the effort of simultaneously inspiring the players and getting the best out of everyone, is tremendous.

This is called management, it has nothing to do with an MBA qualification (it never had), and it is what separates the men from the boys. Any teenager can think of a brand new fantastic way Wenger could utilise his players. I am sure some of the angry posters, think of 20 every day. But make it work? I'd like to see some trying.

Now, I understand the little knitting club of "tactical experts" that reign in this forum are upset. Look, lads, no need for crying. Why can you not just go elsewhere and talk about how many clicks of closing down was Ajax using in the 70s?

Squirmy Rooter I am coming back to talk about what you mentioned...

It's just going in circles this thread and people are becoming insultive in their posts like the one I've quoted. Thread closed.