In Roy's first stint as manager (2017 to 2021) he really only had Zaha from the above although Eze was bought in 2020, but needed time to adjust to the Prem and then got his achilles injury.
When he came back for a season in late 2023 to 2024 we did have the above listed players but Olise was out for nearly 1/2 a season with his hamstring injury and Zaha left that summer. When we played a number of games without both Eze and Olise we were woeful and lacked all creativity. Any manager would have struggled with that situation.
Agreed, and I don't think people appreciate the point enough.
Listening to the pundits (which I only really do when I can't find the remote to mute the telly at half time) you would think the Palace players had been let off the leash to play free-flowing, attacking football by Glasner after years of having their potential inhibited by Roy. Actually, Roy rarely had anything like the same attacking talent fit and available as Ollie has had. Roy cut his cloth accordingly. When a few of those attacking players were fit and in form, the football under Roy improved. This was most notable when he stepped back in after Vieria had left.
I personally think that the reason Mateta suddenly came good after being awful before is that he was being fed by Eze and Olise at a time when both had regained full fitness, had matured beyond their inconsistent beginnings at Palace, and were coming to the boil. To have two No10s of that quality at Palace, at the same time, played a huge part in getting the ball rolling for Ollie. Add in the signing of Munoz (is there a better right wing back anywhere?) and Wharton... Roy never had those riches.
Not that Glasner isn't a better coach. For one thing, he targets the cups when Roy dismissed them. For another, his work evidently results in far better use of possession. He seems to drill progressive patterns of play into the team in a way Roy never did. We are also better at set plays now.
That said, I think Roy and Glasner have a few more similarities than the press coverage picks up on. Both are proper training ground coaches, who install a strict system into the players, making them a cohesive unit. Neither gives players the 'freedom' to just do what they think is best. I think that's partly why both prefer a settled, rarely changing team - rotation undermines the work done on the training ground to glue a particular XI together.
Also, neither minds having less possession, playing on the break, soaking up pressure. They both start with being hard to beat.
In much the same way that Roy did a great job at Fulham, West Brom, and Palace, but failed at Liverpool and England even though the players have all said since that they liked him, I do wonder if Ollie is right for a big club. Would a Spurs, Liverpool, Bayern etc appreciate his regimented, controlled, tactical football? Or is that best suited to the likes of us?
England
Bermuda
sportwitness.co.uk
