I'm not sure that this is going to help or simply fog the issue even more but this is what I think Lanzo is saying:
1. Glasner is a one trick pony in that his system is a fairly hard-wired 3-4-2-1 which requires certain types of players in order to work successfully - inter alia, wingbacks, number 10s, and a plethora of CBs.
2. If the club DON'T give him the right type of player in January then Lanzo foresees us in deep do-dos should Munoz and Mitchell be out for any length of time (or lose form) and we could well fall through the relegation trap-door. Lanzo would want Glasner out soonest to avert that risk if he's not properly backed in January.
3. However, if the club plan to give Glasner the type of players he needs for his system then Lanzo believes things will go well on the pitch BUT he wants the club to tie Glasner down beyond his current contract rather than find themselves in 18 months time with players bought for a specific system and having to find another manager who uses that system should Glasner not agree to a new contract.
4 In short, I think Lanzo is saying something like "either back Glasner in January with the right type of players or sack Glasner now".
Thank you for articulating something that he either chose not / couldn't / or I just didn't get it !
However ;
1. To paraphrase Willo, last week I was having an online discussion with gentlemen far more learned in the ways of football than I. The subject matter was around the hiring of new managers / head coaches, and what clubs look for. It came down to two things - a level of success in their previous roles and their preferred style of play. In Glasners case then, Parish and Freedman , if employing the same rationale, will be well aware of the type of players required to play for OG.
2. First he raises issues around selling Guehi, next it was back up for Munoz and Mitchell. Just opinions ultimately of course, but see my other post about the wing backs. Any player at any given time can get injured or lose form. I would contend that the main issue is lack of cover in Mitchells position, but as that has been the case even pre OG it seems it's not the top priority for the club.
3. Look, I'm pro Glasner. I haven't done any U turns on this. But do clubs align their signings to the length of the managers contract ? I don't think so.
4. If you're going to sack a manager, at least do it for the right reasons. And that typically is results decision together with a loss of belief that the manager can turn things around. We only have media reporting to go on of course, but there are indications that the club will spend in January. That will be to preserve our EPL status primarily but it also provides support to the manager.
The root of my issue in this debate has been around still possibly wanting the manager sacked but also wanting him to be offered a contract extension. That to me is madness - if you had an employee that was struggling to achieve their objectives, then yes, you would help them and hope that would turn things around for them. But would you offer them an extended contract if you had doubts about them ?
Ireland
England
Scotland
