By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
These reviews always think about transfers as chess pieces and analyse the moves they can make. They never ask "How does that look as a team now?".
If you look at Swansea as a team, how are you going to attack? What is the weakness? Route 1? No chance. Hoofball? Ditto. So it's down the wings, but this defence deals with crosses very efficiently so wingers will find themselves needing to carry the ball into the area. And thank heavens the old days of Martin and Williams with the rush press are gone, just forget it,
Then at the other end, this team can I think play three very different styles of attack. So a defence holding things OK against us, a couple of substitutions and suddenly they are facing a completely different kind of attack. I think that's a nightmare for them.
It is going to be very interesting how Sheehan deploys it all. I was worried about Montague when he came in, but he has proven his worth.
And BTW I saw a site with 'AI' table predictions that had Swansea as 23rd, above Sheffield United. AI? It usually stands for Arrogant Ignorance.
I liked the way Sheehan set up the team the first time around, and would have been happy to see him get the job then.
But the game changer for me was the Derby game last season. Of all the managers at the Liberty (for it always will be) in my view the only other one who might have won that game with the resources available was Rodgers. Sometimes it's just about fight and grit, sometimes it's about flowing elegance. The first of those has not been a Swansea strength.
It's not clear at all that he will get a pay off. He was chosen by the Americans and American coaching positions have tight, almost unachievable performance measures. Fail one of those and they can sack you at no cost.
Why do you think Luke Williams took a job on the floor at Bristol Airport just after he left here?
Why do you think Martin said plaintively "Judge me in March"? Because he has a review point coming up soonish and wants the Board to let it ride and give him more time.
The days when a sacked manager always walked away with loadsmoney are long gone, unless the Board were desperate to get him and he could negotiate. Martin was out of work and being offered promotion.
The Derby game under Sheehan last season was a revelation for me. Looking at the midfield now we almost have two complete midfields, one traditional style of quick and short passing, but easy to bully off the ball, the other solid and physical which you need against some teams.
I think that Vipotnik might (might) do very well playing in front of Stamenic. Strikers are always a bit mercurial. Change how they get service and suddenly it's a drought, but then again a guy who's doing nothing useful, given support that fits suddenly becomes prolific.
He always gets jobs with clubs that are owned by Americans, many of whom are not that sophisticated in their understanding of football. He sells them the idea that 'their team' will be Barcelona 2010, majestically sweeping all before them and winning everything in sight.
The fact is, Barcelona 2010 would not today play the way they did in 2010 and they'd lose if they tried. Also, the Yanks do love a good bullshit merchant, but ... but they review based on results alone.
Rolling around to get someone booked they're used to, this level of cynical time wasting is new in the Championship. But they'll work it out, they'll respond.
It always takes a little time, and quite right too. Nobody wants referees to be trigger happy and they need to talk to their colleagues, decide where the limits are and what to do about it.
Referees have the tools to deal with it. Once they decide it's gone too far they insist the next guy rolling around in agony goes off for treatment, don't let him stand up "You're injured mate, you go off for treatment". They have that authority and it was used quite a lot in the last two world cups to stifle play-acting.
They then ignore the frantic waving from the sidelines for some minutes now he's miraculously 'cured'. That puts a stop to it.
I think the reason Sheehan sticks with Cullen is because he has the team set up the way he wants it to play with a striker up top playing in a certain way to fit into that. Cullen is the closest he's got to that and he had thought the guy they wanted was coming in any time now, tomorrow, next week etc. So rather than chop and change the team organization at this stage with a lot of new guys he asked Cullen to be a place holder for the new No. 9.
If that type of striker isn't coming, and it's now hard to think he is, I think Sheehan will re-work how the striker plays, perhaps the whole front 4 tactics.
A player who challenges the rules ends their career. No one has forgotten Bosman, he won in Court but his career was over - partly because he wasn't terribly good.
The recent ECJ case brought by Lassana Diarra, the Court partially found in his favour, but they didn't go as far as many thought they would. What they did was hand down a judgement that cleared a path for actions for damages, as we now see.
This action seems to be being brought by players at the end of their career, so they're not bothered about being blacklisted by clubs. I can see why the ECJ would prefer this route. If it dramatically changes the rules, as it might, that coming from a civil action be less disruptive than the ECJ nixing the whole contract system in football as unlawful.
What will happen? Dunarskme. It's a Court, anything can happen, especially when there have been no cases around this for thirty years. No guidance from the Courts for that long on what the law actually is tends to lead to nasty surprises when the Courts actually set out their decision.
It always surprises me that the loan system has been allowed to stand for so long. It is clearly iniquitous that when a player completes his loan spell (where the parent club sent him), if he wants to stay there the parent club can stop him and insist he goes somewhere else.
People make the mistake of forgetting that these are not contracts to supply, they are contracts of employment, and therefore hedged about with all manner of restrictions on what can and cannot be included.
In the normal world, you can't take someone on and force them to not move to a competitor for 3 years because you are paying out a lot of money to train them. A Court would laugh at you if you tried.
Being unhappy or getting a better offer are both very good reasons to quit a fixed term contract, it happens all the time with contractors in IT, and there are no legal consequences.
The only reason football players can't do this is because FIFA/EUFA/FA stop clubs from taking them on if they don't like the player's contractual situation. That is the very definition of a restrictive practice between employers.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
