The Secret Footballer

[BarryP]

http://www.teamtalk.com/fulham/9173358/-a-href-http-www.teamtalk.com-news-2483-9173358-The-Secret-Footballer-Meulensteen-a-mistake-class-The-Secret-Footballer-Meulensteen-mistake-The-Secret-Footballer-Meulensteen-mistake-a-

The Secret Footballer: Meulensteen mistake
Wednesday 19th February 2014 9:47

Rene Meulensteen: Lasted only 75 days in charge at Fulham

The Secret Footballer criticises Fulham's decision to appoint Rene Meulensteen and explains how Manchester United can fund Wayne Rooney's deal.

Fulham mad to appoint Meulensteen

Some people are better at being an assistant than a manager, that's just a fact - Brian Kidd, Carlos Queiroz...René Meulensteen.

What amazes me is that certain chairman of other clubs continue to fall for 'Brand Manchester United' as if whatever comes out of Old Trafford has been sprinkled with holy water at some point along the way. It's the same with many of their players, too.

Meulensteen is just the latest example. United won everything while he was at the club and that persuaded the board of Fulham to make him their manager - but he was untested as a No.1 himself.

Don't forget in his only other jobs in the hot seat, he signed a three-year deal with Brondby in Denmark only to leave after six months. And he lasted just 16 days after replacing Guus Hiddink at Anzhi Makhachkala in Russia.

What made their choice even more bizarre was that there are a great many managers out there who specialise in turning about the fortunes of clubs that find themselves at the wrong end of the table.

If I'd been on the Fulham board during the selection process, I'm afraid I'd have rebuffed Meulensteen's name as a possible candidate as quickly as it had been brought up. You just have to wonder what some people really understand about football.

A great coach does not a manager make

At Old Trafford, you'll be hard pushed to find a player who doesn't like or respect Meulensteen as a coach.

However, although he is famed for helping to improve Cristiano Ronaldo, it's important to realise that when you have a selection of the best players in the world, coaching them to improve individually is not your priority.

The skillsets that really need to come to the fore are: how well can I get along with egos? How well can I put on a session for them that reflects the tactics that the manager is employing at the weekend?

For example, if you're playing against a back three, you would perhaps put on a session that encourages the players to exploit the areas of the pitch down the sides of those three players.

A coach at the top level is less about coaching the players to become better in their own right; it is more about tactical awareness on the pitch, setting them up to play a certain way and improving the team as a whole.

Now you might think that sounds like perfect management material and, in theory, it is. But there are mitigating factors.

Firstly, it was Meulensteen's inaugural management job in England, so he was untried. Secondly - and because of that - the players had no respect for him as a manager even if they did as a man.

And thirdly, they were in a terrible position and feeling sorry for themselves. In my view, that calls for a manager who can come in and shake things up, similar to Paolo Di Canio at Sunderland when he kept them up at the back end of last season.

Too many cooks spoiled the broth

The last thing you'd ever want to do when going into a new club that are really struggling is to tell a group of players that have no confidence whatsoever to start passing the ball around like Barcelona.

In fairness to Meulensteen, he didn't. He removed the flair players and brought in players who would dig in and run themselves into the ground while trying to nick a goal with a solitary striker and an advanced midfielder.

My good friend at Fulham had this to say: "The players liked him [Meulensteen] as a coach but we didn't seem to have a man at the top. We seemed to have three managers [Meulensteen, Alan Curbishley and Ray Wilkins] and that made it difficult.

"We'd defend for our lives in every game, home and away, so we'd set up to concede possession right from the off. We weren't going to win the majority of games because if we didn't score, we'd inevitably lose because we just couldn't keep the ball out of our net.

"He was a nice man but we desperately need a leader at the top, not 'The Supremes'."

And Meulensteen's failure to convince his players sums up the danger in employing a coach, no matter how good they are on the training pitch and no matter how much the players enjoy their sessions. Being a manager is completely different.

The traits required to make a good manager are being able to delegate and make tough decisions.

You probably heard Joey Barton once say that Sir Alex Ferguson "couldn't coach to save his life". And no matter how much I dislike Barton, he's right about that.

But he missed the elephant in the room. Ferguson wasn't a coach; he didn't have to be, because he's the best football manager of the last 25 years. And his job involved hiring the best coaches to work with him.

Meulensteen may have been one of those, but he was never the right manager for Fulham.



If this is true and it became known to management that the players had no confidence in Muelensteen & Company then they really did have to go as soon as possible.

[MJG]

By the way its Kitson (SF) talking to Sidwell (insider)

[Craven Mad]

Great article, very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

How do you know the SF is Kitson?

[MJG]

Watch this to find out http://youtu.be/N_0DQAfNzEk

[Craven Mad]

Watch this to find out http://youtu.be/N_0DQAfNzEk

Thanks.

It's a shame though, I had always read it as Danny Murphy.