FORMER Manager Watch: Nuno Espírito Santo

[Deleted member 29446]

Someone wrote a whole article about this?! Football journalism is in the mud!

Might be what's left after AliG and Guest's articles

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Probably time to lock this thread.

What happened, happened. But, its in the past. No reason to dwell on it.

 

[Dr Know]

 

[NEVILLEB]

What on earth are you on about? The point was that someone was using half of that picture to show Nuno had more points than poch , another poster asked to see the whole picture so I posted which clearly shows yes Nuno scored one point better but all his other stats were abysmal in comparison which we all knew anyway causw we've all been watching us get thrashed like Norwich recently

Doubt anyone is going to be on contes back because unlike Nuno and Jose he isn't on a download spiral coming off being sacked/and terrible.

Same as poch, he was given time because he came right off a very successful Southampton spell

Yes the other stats were bad but as I said bigger names would have been given more time.

Ofcourse people will be on Conte’s back if if the team doesn’t improve. Don’t be so stupid.

 

[whitesocks]

Without meaning to get into a 'no, you're missing the point' back and forth.... you're missing the point.

The point is that Levy interfered in a footballing matter when we were reliably informed that he wasn't going to do that anymore. Obviously how true that is we can't say for sure, but that's the premise we're working from.

And the thing that makes him open to criticism, and for which there is little to no defence, is that if he did it for the Traore deal, he could do it for another deal later on. I'm critical of his overriding his DoF and coach, especially that early in their tenures.

If they'd been there a few years and had developed a relationship with the chairman and the club then there may have been some leeway for a chairman to be so interventionist. But even then it should be a rare, if at all, action, and not one you take with people you've only just employed after saying that you're giving them autonomy.

It would benefit people if they took the Traore aspect of it out of their analysis. Ignore the temptation to consider whether Traore would have been a good or bad bad signing and concentrate on the interventionism displayed by the chairman - a chairman who has hardly covered himself in glory when it comes to signings over his entire tenure.

Would you be defending him quite so vociferously if he'd blocked a deal for a player you yourself would have wanted? Let's say hypothetically, Paratici and Nuno told him that they wanted Ronaldo and it would cost them £50m but he'd blocked that transfer for financial reasons. Would you be lauding discernment then?

My argument holds true regardless of the player. Yours, I apologetically have to say, doesn't.

Different budgets for different positions is sensible. Sorry, but Levy is right on this. A striker is generally more expensive than a goalie.
Maybe a dof who was more grounded/financially trustworthy would not need guidelines like these.
Maybe Paratici's strengths are more on spotting players who will thrive in the prem/spurs - a rare gift, than in balancing the books or filling a vacancy.
Paratici does not come across as a hard nosed negotiator. In the interviews so far, he doesn't even sound that coherent, like he's just woken up. A man perhaps who loves his football, knows the value of players, but not so much their price. Someone like that is going to need a framework.

Nuno was very stoic about things. Oh, you forgot about a backup striker? That's fine.
Oh, you want an extended holiday as you're pissed off? That's fine.
It was a holiday camp. Things are hopefully about to change.

 

[DJS]

Not sure if posted already but Nuno pitch marking on floor been removed. Not unexpected but kind of funny, literally like he never happened haha. View attachment 99170

Left marks on the floor though, which is a shame given how new the flooring is!

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Ofcourse people will be on Conte’s back if if the team doesn’t improve. Don’t be so stupid.

A little harsh there, imo.

And, I think Conte gets the benefit of the doubt. I think in this case, if the players fail to improve, the blame will go to the players, and then to Levy for buying them, or not sell them - though that now falls on Paratici to deliver.

Conte, of course, has earned that benefit of the doubt, and will no doubt be given much more leeway than someone like Nuno.

 

[slartibartfast]

A little harsh there, imo.

And, I think Conte gets the benefit of the doubt. I think in this case, if the players fail to improve, the blame will go to the players, and then to Levy for buying them, or not sell them - though that now falls on Paratici to deliver.

Conte, of course, has earned that benefit of the doubt, and will no doubt be given much more leeway than someone like Nuno.

Agree. He's a proven winner who, unlike Jose, hasn't had 3 or 4 eggs splat on his face. If he isn't succesful at Spurs it could be for many different reasons but he doesnt know what he is doing wont be the reason.

 

[DannyNZ]

Just dont understand why Nuno didn’t build the team based on three at the back, seems he would have been more comfortable with that and the squad looks better suited to it than the formations he concocted.

 

[Hakkz]

Might be what's left after AliG and Guest's articles

Think it's consistent with what football.london normally put out. ?‍

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Just dont understand why Nuno didn’t build the team based on three at the back, seems he would have been more comfortable with that and the squad looks better suited to it than the formations he concocted.

I'm glad he didn't otherwise we'd not now have Conte.
Slidingdoors moment, although it seems he really was a glorified caretaker really.

 

[freeeki]

 

[Rout-Ledge]

View attachment 99489

Doesn’t seem to be a verified account?

 

[freeeki]

Doesn’t seem to be a verified account?

He's not much of a social media user, although he has been posting from that account for a few years.

His Facebook is verified, last posted January 2020, still has him down as Wolves manager.

His Twitter is also verified, and does show him in Spurs gear, but he hasn't posted on it since 2018.

I respect his obvious disinterest in the social media circus tbh.

 

[GetSpurredOn]

Just dont understand why Nuno didn’t build the team based on three at the back, seems he would have been more comfortable with that and the squad looks better suited to it than the formations he concocted.

This was the thing I didn’t get. He built his reputation at Wolves with a 3ATB system, rarely deviated from it. Players knew their roles and he got some limited success. I fully expected him to come to us and start to build the same foundations, but he didn’t, he flitted from system to system, never quite building the fluidity required. Playing 433 early on, then 4231 when the wheels came off, but often playing 3ATB in Europe, it never allowed the players to build up an understanding of what he wanted. Yes there should be some tactical flexibility, but there should always be a default setup. Agree, we’re better set up for 3ATB I think.

 

[Locotoro]

View attachment 99489

For me, the lack of any comment on the club itself speaks volumes. Nuno thanks the fans but makes no comment on his former employers other than to say that he got the sack a few weeks after winning manager of the month. Reading between the lines he probably feels aggrieved at being sacked so quickly.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

For me, the lack of any comment on the club itself speaks volumes. Nuno thanks the fans but makes no comment on his former employers other than to say that he got the sack a few weeks after winning manager of the month. Reading between the lines he probably feels aggrieved at being sacked so quickly.

Diddums.

 

[Gilzeanking]

Its sad , but he has been very well compensated . Spurs was very profitable for him .

 

[al_pacino]

Just dont understand why Nuno didn’t build the team based on three at the back, seems he would have been more comfortable with that and the squad looks better suited to it than the formations he concocted.

It is surprising but I think we've seen in the admittedly very early days under Conte that finding the midfield two that Nuno would've needed isn't that easy with the current group of players.

Overall the whole time with Nuno was weird. He wasn't many people's first (or seventh) choice but you expected some sort of solidity that was never there. Who knows why? The pressure to try to play the Tottenham way?

He did look like he needed a break though that he at least has the chance to take now.

 

[Gassin's finest]

An interesting take on it in The Athletic:

Ambitious clubs no longer wait until a manager's position is untenable - they upgrade when they can

Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester City have shown taking the chance to upgrade to an elite manager can be highly successful

theathletic.co.uk

At some point in recent years, the decision-making behind managerial sackings has dramatically altered.

Once upon a time, club boards thought about management with — to slightly misuse a political term — incumbency bias. They thought about the person currently in charge of the side. Was he doing a good job? Or even a passable one? If so, then you stuck with him. If he was starting to do an unacceptably bad job, you got rid of him, and then you looked for someone new. Nothing too complex about all this.

But now the situation is different.

Ambitious clubs are now looking at it in another manner, without such emphasis upon incumbency. They’re simply scanning the options and working out if there’s a possible upgrade to be had. If so, they pounce. A manager’s current level of performance is less relevant.

England’s current three most dominant clubs all have managers who were appointed in this way.

Manchester City’s Pep Guardiola, reigning Premier League champion and winner of three of the last four titles, was not appointed because his predecessor was fired having performed disastrously.

In fact, in early February 2016, when Manuel Pellegrini announced he would be leaving at the end of that season, because the club had already decided to appoint Guardiola, City were second in the league. They were trailing only a Leicester City side few expected to last the course having barely avoided relegation nine months earlier — and who were visiting the Etihad that coming weekend.

In other words, Manchester City were favourites for that Premier League title, and winning a second championship to go with the one he delivered in his 2013-14 debut season would have been regarded as a good performance by Pellegrini. But Guardiola, who it had already been announced was leaving Bayern Munich that summer, was understandably considered a clear upgrade, so the club made the switch.

The same was true of Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool a few months earlier.

He’d made a difficult start to the 2015-16 campaign, after an underwhelming sixth-place finish in 2014-15, but might have felt he had enough credit in the bank from the title near-miss of 2013-14 to remain in position. Yes, Liverpool were in mid-table, but they were also just three points off the top four and it was only the first week of October.

In generations gone by, Rodgers would have been allowed time to turn things around. But he wasn’t.

The news of his departure immediately after a 1-1 derby draw at Everton came as a shock — Jamie Carragher and Thierry Henry reacting live on Sky that Sunday evening, which has entered GIF lore, springs to mind — but ultimately, Rodgers’ performance in charge at Anfield was not as impressive at Jurgen Klopp’s had been at Borussia Dortmund and, now the German was available, Liverpool turned to him.

The same was true, to a lesser extent, for Frank Lampard — who, with his Chelsea side in ninth position in January of this year having lost five of eight league games, can’t complain too much about his departure. The major factor wasn’t Lampard’s performance, though, but Thomas Tuchel’s availability, having been dismissed by Paris Saint-Germain only a month before.

Notably, if you google the news stories about the departures of Pellegrini, Rodgers and Lampard, they all — within the first couple of lines — correctly identify their probable replacement. These clubs didn’t decide to part with a manager, and then spend a couple of weeks scrabbling around deciding on the next guy. The identity of the successor was essentially the reason the initial manager was sacked.

The same is true of Antonio Conte’s appointment at Tottenham Hotspur this week. The announcement on Tuesday came 24 hours after Nuno Espirito Santo was dismissed, and while the lingering question is about what happened in the summer that prevented Daniel Levy from finding an agreement with the Italian back then rather than turning to Nuno, the principles broadly remain true.

Was it the right decision to sack Nuno? In terms of the league table: Spurs are ninth, two points off fifth place, so, probably not. In terms of the underlying numbers: possibly. In terms of Conte being his replacement: yes.

It seems probable that Nuno was handed only a two-year contract when he joined in late June because Levy knew there was a strong chance of him upgrading from the former Wolverhampton Wanderers boss at some stage, and wanted to minimise the pay-off.

Frank Lampard was sacked as Chelsea head coach before replacement Thomas Tuchel won the Champions League final later that season.
So, what has changed? Have boards just become more uncompromising, more ruthless, more trigger-happy?

Perhaps those things are true. But what is probably more pertinent is that the nature of management has changed.

Ten or 20 years ago, we were still accustomed to the concept of an old-school British manager who was in charge of everything at a club, from transfers to training to tactics.

Now the Premier League has embraced the “European” model of a sporting director and a first-team coach, it’s easier to make a change. You’re not entirely ripping up the club’s blueprint and starting again.

This has often been the justification for Watford sacking their managers so regularly, and it’s not a coincidence that their owners are Italian.

Serie A was once in a league of its own in terms of managerial departures, with English observers baffled how Italian clubs could replace their manager twice in a matter of months. Now, that’s not altogether uncommon in the English top flight. Only one manager was dismissed during the Premier League’s 1992-93 debut season. Less than three months into this one, there have been five already — a quarter of the league — after Norwich City and Aston Villa ditched Daniel Farke and Dean Smith this weekend.

We’re often told about the virtues of a board staying patient and remaining faithful to a manager, although the example provided is almost always Manchester United not sacking Sir Alex Ferguson over three decades ago. There are fewer obvious modern tales, the closest equivalent probably being around this time in 2014, when Mauricio Pochettino said he feared being dismissed around 10 games into what became his five and a half years at Spurs.

But there are more obvious examples of big clubs making a change and then improving quickly. In that respect, Chelsea’s appointment of Tuchel might prove the most influential decision since Barcelona decided to turn to Guardiola as Frank Rijkaard’s replacement in the summer of 2008.

Former Barcelona captain and B-team coach Guardiola’s appointment had popularised the concept of recruiting a young, untested manager who knows the club. Tuchel has demonstrated the value of ditching that type of figure mid-season for a coach with a greater pedigree. Chelsea’s transformation under the German was remarkable and culminated in them lifting the European Cup after just his 30th game in the job.

While Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea upgraded from managers who weren’t yet at the stage where their position was untenable, Manchester United remain reluctant to do the same.

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has rarely looked capable of getting the best out of his squad, yet has arguably never endured a run of results that leaves the United board with no other option to dismiss him. In that respect, their approach feels distinctly old-fashioned considering Tuchel, Pochettino and Conte have all been available at various stages over the last year. Some may argue that yesterday’s pitiful performance in a 2-0 home loss to Manchester City should be the final straw, but there is now no obvious replacement for Solskjaer. It’s arguable that last weekend’s meeting between United and Tottenham was one both sides were better off losing — a win would only paper over the cracks, whereas a defeat would force the issue and prompt the appointment of Conte.

Interestingly, it’s difficult to find anyone who believes Spurs were wrong to sack Nuno, even though we’re only 10 games into the Premier League campaign.

A decade ago, you suspect, we would have heard complaints about short-termism, about Nuno not being given enough time.

The lack of those voices isn’t necessarily a damning verdict of his Tottenham reign; more a reflection of how we now think about football management.