Is Glasner the problem?

[beak]

Having attended many court cases not in a defendant capacity i hasten to add mitigation is a bit of a side show to the charge itself. The thread title is Glasner the problem? Whatever happens to any team is surely in the main a reflection of the manager I cannot see how the two can be entirely divorced,he to me is an auction piece of value that has dinks and cracks.A flawed genius if you like.

 

[JHB]

And I haven't seen anyone on here claiming that he is.

The main thrust of the Glasner debate is that some want him out now - as they did in October 24 - and quote some of the issues you raise without taking into consideration any mitigating circumstances.

Based upon that type of reasoning, Silva would have been sacked by Fulham in December, Iraola would be looking for his next job, Frank would be out at Spurs and maybe Slot would have gone from Liverpool.

And here's the best of the lot - in September the media were quoting how much pressure Unai Emery was under after taking only 3 points from the opening 5 games. Look at them now.

If you analyse the good runs of form v. the bad, it shouldn't take long to realise that OG gets better results when he has a fuller squad to select from. Don't most managers ?

And I think you are totally wrong about his ability to motivate his players. We've been punching above our weight on numerous occasions under Glasner. Look at some of the player interviews and see how often they mention his motivational skills.

I did say seemingly sometimes struggles. Perhaps a better way to say it would be the mindset doesn’t always seem right. Saturday was a good example but I’d add in some of our Conference League performances and the Carabao Cup game against Milwall. Not so much that we are lazy or anything but do seem to lack leadership or be able to impose our authority.

I think there are very few people calling for him to be sacked on current form. There is a separate debate about whether we should move on if he doesn’t sign an extension and is leaving in the summer anyway but that is more about future planning.

 

[JHB]

I partly agree - I think he is fairly wedded to his system, and agree it does not look nearly as effective against teams who give us the ball. But I think we've only had two bad runs in the two years he's managed us; the games at the start of last season, and the games over the last month or so - in both cases, I think the context around the results is very explainable; last season it was the late recruitment and lack of pre-season, and now it's a fixture pile-up during a bit of an injury crisis and a lack of squad depth.

Essentially whenever he's had a full, fit squad, we've been consistently really good - 20 games unbeaten or whatever it was doesn't really speak to him being a high/low manager.

There are of course mitigating circumstances. However ‘only’ two bad runs is still a fair stretch of bad form given he’s only been here two years. He’s also had similar at some of his other clubs. Maybe that is just a function of the sort of clubs he’s manager though and the resources available

 

[Eagle Black.]

Glasner's a winner, not the problem.

 

[JessieJ]

Glasner's a winner, not the problem.

A winner? Probably. The Problem? I see the problem somewhat wider; Maybe tactically stubborn, partly forced into plugging gaps in the line-ups etc. etc. But I certain that he is partly the problem because of the "will-he"/"won't he" noise albeit mostly stirred up by the media but part of life today more's the pity.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

With any manager (more head coach really, these days) I don't think it is a simple matter of assessing their strengths and weaknesses, at least not in the way they appear after the team has won or lost. Its more about the suitability of their approach overall.

In Glasner, as with Roy before him, we have a training ground coach who drills his team into a settled and well-understood shape, particularly defensively. We are set up to absorb pressure more than to apply it. The system rarely (if ever) changes, and team selection is highly consistent.

When we do well, be it an isolated win, a run of good results, or a trophy(!), the approach seems a significant part of the reason. It gets the best out of a squad that, whilst strong by our standards, is nothing like as good as most of the teams above us. It is smart, modern, realistic, and makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. When we do badly, however, it seems predictable, unduly rigid, inhibiting, and conservative.

Imagine now that Glasner, or the next man, changes his system more often, either during games or from game to game. He rotates a little more, and makes substitutions earlier in attempting to influence the game. When we win he will seem tactically advanced and alert, attuned to high-speed decisions, bold, and flexible in a good way. He will be making best use of the squad, giving better players the odd rest and allowing the development of young hopefuls. When we lose, however, he will seem like he is jumping from one idea to the other, confusing the players, and not knowing his best XI. We will be sympathetic to youngsters being thrown into an unsettled side without a consistent approach they can slip into and be guided through.

How many times do you see a flailing club change manager, or the manager change systems and selection left, right, and centre, all apparently out of desperation? It often seems like luck when they get a result, and if anything just spreads doubt to the players, fans, and media about the sound planning and clear-headedness of the coach.

To me, that is how football is. Each different approach a coach may bring to the job has its own characteristic traits in both good and bad spells. And we will always have both, regardless of the approach taken.

So I think the question is, what approach, overall, is best for Palace? I remain convinced that a settled team and system, largely focused on defensive shape, is best. We do not have the first XI players or squad depth to justify either taking the handbrake off, or rotating. We have had a shocking result, and are in a bad run of form, but that doesn't mean it is all broken. The underlying factors remain the same, and the best approach remains that which we currently adopt. I expect Glasner to play 343 with senior players in the coming games, and would be concerned if he didn't.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

It didn't hold up the signing of Brennan Johnson so you would think not....

We knew about Johnson signing back in late December as revealed by Chris Armstrong, Johnson can play as a winger so not a problem if a new manger comes in. Glasner plays 5 at the back and uses wing backs which might not suit a new manager.

Don't get me wrong i do like Glasner and he has done great for us but i just want him to commit or move on.

 

[The Dolphin]

I am in the camp of - I want him to stay but if he won't commit then we might as well bite the bullet now.

 

[Eagle-Trucker]

I am in the camp of - I want him to stay but if he won't commit then we might as well bite the bullet now.

The problem with that is he will either get a big pay off or continue to collect his wages until the end of his contract .

 

[Goalpost1]

We knew about Johnson signing back in late December as revealed by Chris Armstrong, Johnson can play as a winger so not a problem if a new manger comes in. Glasner plays 5 at the back and uses wing backs which might not suit a new manager.

Don't get me wrong i do like Glasner and he has done great for us but i just want him to commit or move on.

I kind of agree with this. It's been seen with other managers and clubs that the closer it gets to the end of a contract the more it can increase the chances of it adversely affecting form on the pitch.

That said I think getting back Sarr and Munoz will make a huge difference with their pace and goalscoring ability.

 

[The Dolphin]

The problem with that is he will either get a big pay off or continue to collect his wages until the end of his contract .

It is only a few months - end of June?