I hope we take a best practice commercial approach to appointing the Head Coach

Status
Not open for further replies.
the streaker said:
Rodwells been shit mate and he was supposedly fully fit when he came here.........
Click to expand...

We all knew he was having a "pre season" when he started the season, 1 reason that he was taken off after 70 minutes in the first 8-10 games....fuck knows how he got "community player of the season" :eek:
 


CARLOS CLASS said:
This thread wasn't supposed to be a debate about Congerton! He is in the position he is in....

We need to be looking at the best way to decide upon the next Head Coach. There are numerous threads on here that randomly trumpet various names for the role and they prove my point entirely eg they have no real depth of analysis behind them other than individual judgements based on at best a at distance view of candidates.

Rigour is needed and my very strong view is that external, professional, specialist support should be brought in to ensure we do this thoroughly and properly
Click to expand...

Whilst I would not disagree with you that the use of a consultant might be beneficial, I do not believe that this would overcome your perceived problem of there being "... no real depth of analysis ... other than individual judgements based on at best a at distance view of candidates ..." You would simply replace (or, more likely, add to) any existing 'individual judgements' with an alternative/additional "... external, professional, specialist ..." judgement/opinion.

In the end, any decision that involves choosing one option from a broader range of options is going to depend upon opinion. That opinion may be held and exercised solely by an oligarchical figure (for example, Ellis Short), or by a managerial figure (for example, Congleton), or it can be the sum total of the combined wisdom of a task-specific collegial group (for example, Short, Congleton plus a recruitment consultant). Regardless of which, there is no guarantee that the decision will be the correct one, or that the appointed manager/coach will be a success. It isn't a science or something that a sophisticated algorithm can find the answer to.

However, the fewer opportunities for pointing a finger in an attempt to avoid being blamed should it not be a success seems preferable.
 
CARLOS CLASS said:
What we need is a proper selection process rather than people just hoying random names about like headless chickens :evil::evil::evil:
Click to expand...
The same selection process that gave us Di Canio and Gus. With the same geniuses in the boardroom making the decisions I'd say hoying names around is just as good.

Advocaat worked out canny so I'm hoping they go down a similar road with this lad.
 
Clueless said:
Whilst I would not disagree with you that the use of a consultant might be beneficial, I do not believe that this would overcome your perceived problem of there being "... no real depth of analysis ... other than individual judgements based on at best a at distance view of candidates ..." You would simply replace (or, more likely, add to) any existing 'individual judgements' with an alternative/additional "... external, professional, specialist ..." judgement/opinion.

In the end, any decision that involves choosing one option from a broader range of options is going to depend upon opinion. That opinion may be held and exercised solely by an oligarchical figure (for example, Ellis Short), or by a managerial figure (for example, Congleton), or it can be the sum total of the combined wisdom of a task-specific collegial group (for example, Short, Congleton plus a recruitment consultant). Regardless of which, there is no guarantee that the decision will be the correct one, or that the appointed manager/coach will be a success. It isn't a science or something that a sophisticated algorithm can find the answer to.

However, the fewer opportunities for pointing a finger in an attempt to avoid being blamed should it not be a success seems preferable.
Click to expand...

I would say that there is always an element of judgement in terms of the final decision, but the more data and evidence the judgement is based on the better, surely!
 
CARLOS CLASS said:
So get some help......it's a massive decision, it has huge repercussions. There is massive value to be had in doing this, cost negligible in the scheme of things. Not getting this help would show weakness IMO, ES should insist on it
Dyche has all the charisma of a dead fish so no way



I think he is a candidate, but there are many. He is one that should be looked at it detail - I've seen the points made re the telegraph articles etc and these indicate many positive traits, but much much more can be done to ascertain the depth and quality of these traits and to compare him to other potential candidates
Click to expand...
 
CARLOS CLASS said:
I would say that there is always an element of judgement in terms of the final decision, but the more data and evidence the judgement is based on the better, surely!
Click to expand...

Of course your comment about the more data and evidence the better is correct. However, there is also a risk in that, with those involved in the process becoming 'data junkies', always pursuing 'just one more' tranche of data, which, invariably, is supposedly going to improve the decision exponentially but actually just feeds the prevarication over making an actual decision. Also, it is not always necessary or advisable to over-complicate and confuse the process with additional people. Data collection is a time-relevant, rather than person-relevant consideration. In my experience, the smaller the group of individuals involved in a decision making process and thereby the clearer the responsibility, the better the eventual outcome.
 
Clueless said:
Of course your comment about the more data and evidence the better is correct. However, there is also a risk in that, with those involved in the process becoming 'data junkies', always pursuing 'just one more' tranche of data, which, invariably, is supposedly going to improve the decision exponentially but actually just feeds the prevarication over making an actual decision. Also, it is not always necessary or advisable to over-complicate and confuse the process with additional people. Data collection is a time-relevant, rather than person-relevant consideration. In my experience, the smaller the group of individuals involved in a decision making process and thereby the clearer the responsibility, the better the eventual outcome.
Click to expand...

My point is that we need to be more detailed and thorough in the process than previously. I'm not suggesting "the spanish inquisition" with panels of statisticians voting for the new head coach :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top