In this Live Special of The Huddle Breakdown, we react to the breaking news that Wilfried Nancy has left Celtic after just eight games, with Martin O'Neill making a shock return to the dugout.
It’s so refreshing to see an informed good faith debate on why this project ultimately didn’t succeed.
The misinformed discourse I’ve seen throughout his 33 day tenure until his dismissal is quite astounding!
I think I agree with both James and Alan’s assessments for different reasons.
On a point of principle I fully agree with James (footballers should adhere to instruction in a military type manner) but I think Alan’s assessment correctly addresses the world as we find it and not how we would want it which I fully accept.
Humans don’t like change and obviously on some level the change management process has failed here. If the players didn’t buy into Nancy for whatever reason then he was doomed unfortunately.
The world of Celtic definitely isn’t the world as we want it for anyone who’s passionate about data analytics and modernisation in a football department.
I can’t see that changing in the long term and anything I believe we might get further away from the world as we want it under Desmond.
I think he’ll probably stay well clear of appointing a modern and progressive coach again sadly.
I think it’s interesting to compare the mid-season introductions of Amorim at Manchester United and Steve Clarke at Killie. Amorim took a group of very good players, banged square pegs into round holes and somehow managed to make a squad assembled for 100s of £millions chaotic and readily beatable. Clarke, on the other hand, took a group of very average players (if we’re being kind), who couldn’t buy a win under the previous coach, and immediately made them almost unbeatable.
It was pretty clear what Nancy had to do at Celtic, and what were the risks. In mid-season, with a depleted squad and many of his best players missing, there was more or less no choice - he had to organise the players available to him into a coherent unit that could survive and prosper in football matches. There wasn’t the scope, with all those problems and with a run of important fixtures between his appointment and the transfer window, to resource and prepare an upgrade programme. There was discussion on here about whether Nancy would be dogmatic or pragmatic, but I expect it wasn’t his choice. He should have been asked to stabilise the team and plan for a proper rebuild in the summer. It’s a real pity because we’ve now lost what appears to have been quite an exciting coach and precipitated a completely avoidable deluge of reputational damage. It’s a fiasco.
I think it's more than overloads but IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY from videos + reading, it's mainly about optionality to disrupt the opponent's defensive plan and not make too much of a defensive sacrifice.
Instead of Ralston by himself, swarmed at the edge of the pitch and McGregor pointing backwards, imagine if there was a box of 4 players who can all conceivably play a double pivot defensive midfielder, wingback, and RCB/LCB (if supported by Trusty as the backup central CB in a back 3). Easier to imagine on the left:
Saracchi, Tierney, Jeffrey Schlupp when he just joined and was in better form, and an engaged/aggressive McGregor.
In theory, they can all short pass to each other, dribble forward and cross it from the wings, or move a bit more centrally and progress the ball. The pressing defenders cannot cover that many options. Then whoever falls back as the LCB is "good enough" defensively to not be a liability if the middle CB Trusty supports them. With all-rounders like this, the trade-off made in specialization is made up for in numbers and optionality to create advantages.
Try this kind of approach with CCV, Bernardo, Tounekti and Hatate. Impossible. CCV would be too slow on the wings, I've rarely seen Bernardo dribble forward well, Hatate dropping back to be an LCB is concerning, etc. This is I think what James means by the NBA 3&D example and needing all rounders (though smart coaches in the NBA still manage to integrate specialists in small doses and win championships, but a topic for another day).
This logic is then applied to the rest of the pitch: e.g. wingers, forwards, and 10s who can all switch with each other and confuse the defence.
I agree with Alan, however, that this is not needed to win in the SPFL, especially in the short term. A more gradual and comfortable implementation would be better. Long term though and I'm fully on board.
-- ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT: --
I also don't agree that being nice and gradual is a "touchy feely" approach. To me, it's simply about ability to execute and covering blind spots. "Do it or get out" doesn't work until the transfer window and if the board backs him. Furthermore, a mediocre strategy executed perfectly with everyone on the same page is generally more effective than a superior strategy executed very inconsistently, IMO, in most disciplines.
Getting people "on side" in my experience is not just about placating egos, it's often also about getting access to more information and getting things to run smoothly without your involvement in the short term. And instead of "I don't have time to change 1,000 things at once," gradual change allows you to focus on the 250 most critical issues first without the other 750 items all collapsing (to use the analogy).
As to change management, take your and Alan's points usually being the case, but Nancy had 3+ weeks until the window opened and almost no institutional backing amidst a civil war. He may not have realized it, but think he needed to act with far more urgency given the circumstances and timeline. His public comments suggested he thought he'd have more time to engage in placating people trying to earn buy-in as you guys smartly layout...I simply don't think he was going to get it that way short term even if results were better, let alone what they ended up being.
True. The organisation certainly appears to be drenched in toxicity and "no institutional backing amidst a civil war" does appear likely. The deeper we go there the more limited information we are working with probably (or at least myself), but that does make sense.
I think his attempt to fuse elements of positional and relational play align with how strategy has evolved in other sports as spatial optimization becomes more ubiquitous. Rote positional play where "dumb footballers" are told where to go is tantamount to a wide receiver in the NFL running the same route from the same formation over and over. Prepared opposition easily learn to shut that down.
The way to combat it is as you say, introduce optionality via read and react smartly. That was what Tom Brady was a master of - reading what was available inside a system that demanded his receivers be able to also read coverages at a high level so they were on the same page far more than not.
I will take issue on style of play strategically. Celtic have not needed to do much different in the past to win the league, but there are clear and present danger of that shifting. Unless Desmond awakens to allow a smarter wage bill structure and dynamic recruitment strategy, mediocrity at Rangers and/or scenario if/when Bloom empties the people causing problems at Hearts, I am confident it will be nowhere near enough domestically let alone in Europe.
After reading/researching Nancy's tactics in more detail I am 100% on board with it as the correct approach long-term, especially given your point about it being undervalued at the moment. Given Scotland's recent history of strong midfielders/decent fullbacks (but having weaker domestic talent in more specialized roles: see the national team's strikers, CBs and keepers), I'd even argue that Celtic is in a strong position (geographically) to implement it from a training and development perspective. Obviously, the training/development apparatus is bad too, at a club level, but oh well.
I blame them taking the listed company approach but without fan ownership for checks and balances, but also a topic for another day. 😂
To me Nancy's issue was naive change management and misreading the "market environment" over the short term, but as you point out, probably other organisational factors at play.
Good show and I enjoyed the healthy debate. Respect everyone's opinions on Nancy and the reasons he failed. In truth, it's a bit of everything..... mis-managed change, structure, tactics, players, variance and timing.
As MON said, in the end it's a results business. If you don't get results, you're out of a job. Not sure there is anyone better placed than MON to steady the ship and mend the damage, given everything that has happened recently.
I had assumed, possibly wrongly, that as Wilson was a product of the Hearts youth setup, that Bloom would not have been as forward in requesting the manager to play him. But given James' comments on how Bloom operates, can understand why it would be.
I think he is certainly worth a punt. Depends on whether or not Hearts would sell him to us, and what their valuation of him is. Unlikely to be the £275k Hearts paid for him, despite limited opportunities to play.
It’s so refreshing to see an informed good faith debate on why this project ultimately didn’t succeed.
The misinformed discourse I’ve seen throughout his 33 day tenure until his dismissal is quite astounding!
I think I agree with both James and Alan’s assessments for different reasons.
On a point of principle I fully agree with James (footballers should adhere to instruction in a military type manner) but I think Alan’s assessment correctly addresses the world as we find it and not how we would want it which I fully accept.
Humans don’t like change and obviously on some level the change management process has failed here. If the players didn’t buy into Nancy for whatever reason then he was doomed unfortunately.
The world of Celtic definitely isn’t the world as we want it for anyone who’s passionate about data analytics and modernisation in a football department.
I can’t see that changing in the long term and anything I believe we might get further away from the world as we want it under Desmond.
I think he’ll probably stay well clear of appointing a modern and progressive coach again sadly.
Really good discussion.
I think it’s interesting to compare the mid-season introductions of Amorim at Manchester United and Steve Clarke at Killie. Amorim took a group of very good players, banged square pegs into round holes and somehow managed to make a squad assembled for 100s of £millions chaotic and readily beatable. Clarke, on the other hand, took a group of very average players (if we’re being kind), who couldn’t buy a win under the previous coach, and immediately made them almost unbeatable.
It was pretty clear what Nancy had to do at Celtic, and what were the risks. In mid-season, with a depleted squad and many of his best players missing, there was more or less no choice - he had to organise the players available to him into a coherent unit that could survive and prosper in football matches. There wasn’t the scope, with all those problems and with a run of important fixtures between his appointment and the transfer window, to resource and prepare an upgrade programme. There was discussion on here about whether Nancy would be dogmatic or pragmatic, but I expect it wasn’t his choice. He should have been asked to stabilise the team and plan for a proper rebuild in the summer. It’s a real pity because we’ve now lost what appears to have been quite an exciting coach and precipitated a completely avoidable deluge of reputational damage. It’s a fiasco.
Enjoyed episode. So many thoughts.
-- ON THE SYSTEM: --
I think it's more than overloads but IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY from videos + reading, it's mainly about optionality to disrupt the opponent's defensive plan and not make too much of a defensive sacrifice.
Instead of Ralston by himself, swarmed at the edge of the pitch and McGregor pointing backwards, imagine if there was a box of 4 players who can all conceivably play a double pivot defensive midfielder, wingback, and RCB/LCB (if supported by Trusty as the backup central CB in a back 3). Easier to imagine on the left:
Saracchi, Tierney, Jeffrey Schlupp when he just joined and was in better form, and an engaged/aggressive McGregor.
In theory, they can all short pass to each other, dribble forward and cross it from the wings, or move a bit more centrally and progress the ball. The pressing defenders cannot cover that many options. Then whoever falls back as the LCB is "good enough" defensively to not be a liability if the middle CB Trusty supports them. With all-rounders like this, the trade-off made in specialization is made up for in numbers and optionality to create advantages.
Try this kind of approach with CCV, Bernardo, Tounekti and Hatate. Impossible. CCV would be too slow on the wings, I've rarely seen Bernardo dribble forward well, Hatate dropping back to be an LCB is concerning, etc. This is I think what James means by the NBA 3&D example and needing all rounders (though smart coaches in the NBA still manage to integrate specialists in small doses and win championships, but a topic for another day).
This logic is then applied to the rest of the pitch: e.g. wingers, forwards, and 10s who can all switch with each other and confuse the defence.
I agree with Alan, however, that this is not needed to win in the SPFL, especially in the short term. A more gradual and comfortable implementation would be better. Long term though and I'm fully on board.
-- ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT: --
I also don't agree that being nice and gradual is a "touchy feely" approach. To me, it's simply about ability to execute and covering blind spots. "Do it or get out" doesn't work until the transfer window and if the board backs him. Furthermore, a mediocre strategy executed perfectly with everyone on the same page is generally more effective than a superior strategy executed very inconsistently, IMO, in most disciplines.
Getting people "on side" in my experience is not just about placating egos, it's often also about getting access to more information and getting things to run smoothly without your involvement in the short term. And instead of "I don't have time to change 1,000 things at once," gradual change allows you to focus on the 250 most critical issues first without the other 750 items all collapsing (to use the analogy).
Sorry for wall of text, just a fun topic.
As to change management, take your and Alan's points usually being the case, but Nancy had 3+ weeks until the window opened and almost no institutional backing amidst a civil war. He may not have realized it, but think he needed to act with far more urgency given the circumstances and timeline. His public comments suggested he thought he'd have more time to engage in placating people trying to earn buy-in as you guys smartly layout...I simply don't think he was going to get it that way short term even if results were better, let alone what they ended up being.
True. The organisation certainly appears to be drenched in toxicity and "no institutional backing amidst a civil war" does appear likely. The deeper we go there the more limited information we are working with probably (or at least myself), but that does make sense.
I think his attempt to fuse elements of positional and relational play align with how strategy has evolved in other sports as spatial optimization becomes more ubiquitous. Rote positional play where "dumb footballers" are told where to go is tantamount to a wide receiver in the NFL running the same route from the same formation over and over. Prepared opposition easily learn to shut that down.
The way to combat it is as you say, introduce optionality via read and react smartly. That was what Tom Brady was a master of - reading what was available inside a system that demanded his receivers be able to also read coverages at a high level so they were on the same page far more than not.
I will take issue on style of play strategically. Celtic have not needed to do much different in the past to win the league, but there are clear and present danger of that shifting. Unless Desmond awakens to allow a smarter wage bill structure and dynamic recruitment strategy, mediocrity at Rangers and/or scenario if/when Bloom empties the people causing problems at Hearts, I am confident it will be nowhere near enough domestically let alone in Europe.
After reading/researching Nancy's tactics in more detail I am 100% on board with it as the correct approach long-term, especially given your point about it being undervalued at the moment. Given Scotland's recent history of strong midfielders/decent fullbacks (but having weaker domestic talent in more specialized roles: see the national team's strikers, CBs and keepers), I'd even argue that Celtic is in a strong position (geographically) to implement it from a training and development perspective. Obviously, the training/development apparatus is bad too, at a club level, but oh well.
I blame them taking the listed company approach but without fan ownership for checks and balances, but also a topic for another day. 😂
To me Nancy's issue was naive change management and misreading the "market environment" over the short term, but as you point out, probably other organisational factors at play.
Good show and I enjoyed the healthy debate. Respect everyone's opinions on Nancy and the reasons he failed. In truth, it's a bit of everything..... mis-managed change, structure, tactics, players, variance and timing.
As MON said, in the end it's a results business. If you don't get results, you're out of a job. Not sure there is anyone better placed than MON to steady the ship and mend the damage, given everything that has happened recently.
who's the hearts striker that's now up for sale? worth acquiring?
The Bloom model is usually focused upon playing and then selling suitable young players. They have only one young striker 🤫
Pierre Landry Kaboré?
Wilson i'd have thought
I had assumed, possibly wrongly, that as Wilson was a product of the Hearts youth setup, that Bloom would not have been as forward in requesting the manager to play him. But given James' comments on how Bloom operates, can understand why it would be.
I think he is certainly worth a punt. Depends on whether or not Hearts would sell him to us, and what their valuation of him is. Unlikely to be the £275k Hearts paid for him, despite limited opportunities to play.