"Are you too intelligent to be a football manager?"

[Klaus Daimler]

No one's said that. People have argued that artistic winning football is better than pragmatic winning football though.

Some have said it Klaus, as I say: the most beautiful thing in football is seeing your team put the ball in the oppositions net and it really doesn't matter how.
This has been corrupted and misunderstood to I would like us to be some sort of SuperStoke.

I just translated it to: as long as we get the result you don't really care about how. Which seems to be precisely what you're saying. And it begs the question: why bother to use a Dennis Bergkamp when a Jermaine Defoe, statistically, could achieve about the same result?

 

[Swish]

Biggus, you have only got to see as far as the Chelsea fans when Mourinho was in charge to see how a vast majority would disagree with that sentiment. However, if it was a team that constantly played football but always failed to score, I could understand such an outlook.

But we have put the ball in the back of the net more times than any other this year in the league. Which means that we have experienced the most beautiful thing in football more than any other rival fans and all of which were scored in open play that saw us mix that important aspect of the game with the other important aspect in football, entertaining us the fans.

There are no extreme sides of the spectrum that we fall into here, we are slap bang in the middle.

 

[Biggus]

I just translated it to: as long as we get the result you don't really care about how. Which seems to be precisely what you're saying. And it begs the question: why bother to use a Dennis Bergkamp when a Jermaine Defoe, statistically, could achieve about the same result?

Thats a disingenuous comparison as those two examples aren't the same and wouldn't achieve the same result.
The important thing is how individuals fit together into a team which should always be more than the sum of it's parts- thats the managers job.

 

[Biggus]

Biggus, you have only got to see as far as the Chelsea fans when Mourinho was in charge to see how a vast majority would disagree with that sentiment. However, if it was a team that constantly played football but always failed to score, I could understand such an outlook.

But the vast majority of those c**ts loved (and probably still do) Mourinho because he brought them success.
It was Abramovich that rightly or wrongly demanded more.

But we have put the ball in the back of the net more times than any other this year in the league. Which means that we have experienced the most beautiful thing in football more than any other rival fans and all of which were scored in open play that saw us mix that important aspect of the game with the other important aspect in football, entertaining us the fans.

There are no extreme sides of the spectrum that we fall into here, we are slap bang in the middle.

Yes I've enjoyed many of our games this season and it's not over yet, of course like most of us I despair at our defensive naivety and Wengers throwing away of the FA cup, but It's been a decent season.

My most recent discontent stems from the CL draw, but that won't matter if we win the league.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

It's not disingenuous at all. The point is that you don't necessarily need a football genius to win. You said it yourself, the sum of the team is greater than its parts. Lesser parts can achieve a greater goal. So why idolize someone like Dennis if there's nothing measurable or tangible that makes him undeniably better than a guy who just knows how to kick and run but scores a lot of goals?

 

[Swish]

Biggus, are you seriously still bearing a grudge over the FA Cup or will that also be discarded along with the CL if we win the league?

 

[yuvken]

you kiddin? give up a piece of metal? They're being measured by the kilo's (or pounds). that, in fact, is the only measure. that is what he's been arguing all along. The PL would serve as a soothing remedy for the quantity and quality of metal. This is one of Archmedes' assistants we're talking about

As for the some bigger than parts, Denis-defoe (how is it grammatically possible to fit them in the same sentence?) and manager intelligence: given that we believe the whole is bigger than the parts (and it's being more true for some teams than others), there are players who's talents (or part of) are manifested in making the team better as a team (making others better; making the system work). Denis (and cesc) sit perfectly there.
The idea that you don't need to be intelligent to see how to make this machine work, despite (I'm not even going to argue for this: I take this to be obvious) there being so many variables - what constitutes the efficiency of the system, when do players contribute more than their respective absolute value (their "defoe-ness"), who are the players that would fit into this, how much (and simply how) can they grow into this, what level of pragmatism should curb the ideal for a specific game (or period of form; or tournament; or level of development) and how much (and when exactly) do we let them perform as they understand it - or force them to patterns (and which) -
and i obviously mentioned only a bit, as I don't posses the required intelligence. Think just of adding to this the aspect of people management in light of those (we haven't said a word about economics, etc: Let's assume, or pretend, it has nothing at all to do with the job)

The temptation to "it's all intuitive in the game" it won't do. Le boss said it takes as much intelligence as you can have (much like other areas which require excellence), and I Agree (Archemedes assistants are not the only one track minds around here )

 

[wellington]

It's not disingenuous at all. The point is that you don't necessarily need a football genius to win. You said it yourself, the sum of the team is greater than its parts. Lesser parts can achieve a greater goal. So why idolize someone like Dennis if there's nothing measurable or tangible that makes him undeniably better than a guy who just knows how to kick and run but scores a lot of goals?

In some ways Klaus I think this may go to the very heart of the issue (for me at least). Sir Alex used Yorke and Cole (lesser parts) in exactly the manner you describe. The footballing genius in that team was Sir Alex. He defined team roles and a pattern of play that was to be adhered to, and resulted in silverware.
The reverse? Well a good example would be the current Real Madrid team. Plenty of football skill, but getting results that reflect it.
So what does that mean for Arsenal? Wenger is trying to collect the best footballers (the most genius) he can. But realistically he knows he can't outbid others trying to do the same. So his strategy is to develop great young players into footballing geniuses. In effect, he is backing his ability to develop players individually, and as a team, in order to better the big spending clubs. This requires a great deal of genius on the part of the manager to carry out. Because not only must he be able to identify the talent, and improve it. But he must also keep the team performing well enough year-in year-out.
So ... my point is that you need some way to be the best. Some clubs do that by spending more money. Some by kicking their opponents. Some by adopting the tactics that best fit their available players. Wenger is doing it by adopting the most strategic, long-term approach possible, which he balances every day against the short-term imperatives.
To me that's the most intelligent approach - if you're intelligent enough to pull it off.

 

[xcdude24]

This might be a little high-brow, but I'll have a go anyways.

Can't be bothered to go through the thread again, but I think Wenger mentions in this one how he wants his team to play in an "artistic" manner. I was doing a little basic reading on the conceptualization of art, and I read that art is fundamentally a transmission of ideas from the creator to the audience. Not sure where I want to go with this, but I guess Wenger makes a point about the relation between his football and art. But if you go with that logic, you can argue that Sam Allardyce is also portraying art, because he certainly has a set of ideas that he's portraying to the audience. But again, I think the audience has a role to play in this- Wenger is more of an artist than Allardyce, because people watch Arsenal because they play good football, while people watch Bolton because they're successful. In this sense, people are rejecting the art Allardyce puts forward(I doubt Bolton supporters were applauding him for the style of football he was playing), and instead embracing the "business" side of his production(in this case, success). But at the end of the day, Bolton's success wasn't bringing people to the Reebok in droves, while thousands of day-tripper with a shallow connection to the club shell out 50 pounds to watch us place fourth and play good football. Same could be said of teams like Mourinho's Chelsea- they were winning trophies and they were attracting SOME increased support, but they still had to advertise games in the newspaper for general sale, etc.

I think clubs might eventually realize that playing an attractive brand of football will be more profitable over time than short-term success, especially with this new generation of middle class supporters with almost no preexisting allegiances. Wenger creates a better vision, and the audience responds positively. Maybe his footballing utopia isn't as far-fetched of an idea as we'd like to think.

 

[Anzac]

In some ways Klaus I think this may go to the very heart of the issue (for me at least). Sir Alex used Yorke and Cole (lesser parts) in exactly the manner you describe. The footballing genius in that team was Sir Alex. He defined team roles and a pattern of play that was to be adhered to, and resulted in silverware.
The reverse? Well a good example would be the current Real Madrid team. Plenty of football skill, but getting results that reflect it.
So what does that mean for Arsenal? Wenger is trying to collect the best footballers (the most genius) he can. But realistically he knows he can't outbid others trying to do the same. So his strategy is to develop great young players into footballing geniuses. In effect, he is backing his ability to develop players individually, and as a team, in order to better the big spending clubs. This requires a great deal of genius on the part of the manager to carry out. Because not only must he be able to identify the talent, and improve it. But he must also keep the team performing well enough year-in year-out.
So ... my point is that you need some way to be the best. Some clubs do that by spending more money. Some by kicking their opponents. Some by adopting the tactics that best fit their available players. Wenger is doing it by adopting the most strategic, long-term approach possible, which he balances every day against the short-term imperatives.
To me that's the most intelligent approach - if you're intelligent enough to pull it off.

This is where I have an issue with the game plan = IMO AW is no 'genius' in doing so in bulk with developing players in the senior squad at the same time.

For me his 'genuis' is in getting the best out of developed players as in his Highbury Years, whilst identifying & nurturing individual talents when the balance of the team is said developed players who are being allowed to express themselves.

AW is trying to both develop players & allow them to express themselves at the same time since this project started, and IMO it won't come to fruition until the majority of the squad has 'come of age' as individuals.

 

[wellington]

Anzac, I think I agree with the approach you are suggesting. I too would be adopting a more pragmatic strategy, by relying less on being able to develop the squad from scratch.
However, I think we have to give Wenger credit for having walked a tightrope. Despite our fears over the last few years, the team has not flopped and fallen back to mid-table. We're at the end of March and are still in contention foe PL and CL. Two years ago we were in pole position until ... (best not dwell on that again).
So I do think that given the deficiencies you've identified, there must be a lot of other stuff going right to balance it. For me, that's genius.

 

[Anzac]

Anzac, I think I agree with the approach you are suggesting. I too would be adopting a more pragmatic strategy, by relying less on being able to develop the squad from scratch.
However, I think we have to give Wenger credit for having walked a tightrope. Despite our fears over the last few years, the team has not flopped and fallen back to mid-table. We're at the end of March and are still in contention foe PL and CL. Two years ago we were in pole position until ... (best not dwell on that again).
So I do think that given the deficiencies you've identified, there must be a lot of other stuff going right to balance it. For me, that's genius.

Fair call. For me we've relied far too heavily upon a few individuals to keep us competitive, and our style of possession passing helps paper over the cracks.

Likewise we've come close to dropping out of the CL on a couple of seasons, and have failed to solidify on seasons we've made progress, let alone improve on them = we have been very see-saw in performance & consitancy from season to season and within those seasons. Lastly there is the issue of releasing senior players & replacing them with internal promotion of developing players resulting in a further imbalance.

 

[Biggus]

I think Wenger mentions in this one how he wants his team to play in an "artistic" manner. I was doing a little basic reading on the conceptualization of art, and I read that art is fundamentally a transmission of ideas from the creator to the audience.

And football is fundamentally a transmission of the ball from the creator's to the goal.

while thousands of day-tripper with a shallow connection to the club shell out 50 pounds to watch us place fourth and play good football.

I don't care about those people or what they find "entertaining" I (and most of us here) are real supporters and our dreams and wishes should be paramount, the function of a football team is to win things not to be a circus.