Scouting The Future

This week, Stoke City manager Tony Pulis was kicked when he was down. With his club in the grips of a death rattle toward the relegation zone, while in the throngs of the poorest run of form by any top flight English League club in 2013, it has become common place for fans of the club to take to the airwaves of national and local radio to complain about the clubs style of play and the tactical mind of Pulis. Pundits make sure they let you know how much they like Pulis, right before they stick the knife in and twist, over where Stoke seem to be headed. All of this is to be expected with the club in such a state, but what isn't to be expected, is your chief scout Lindsay Parsons laying bare to his gripes publicly, when the club needs to be its most unified for Premier League survival.

Parsons let the world know that he was not a fan in any shape or form of the style of play employed by Stoke City under Tony Pulis, and that many of the transfer targets suggested to the club from a scouting perspective had been declined due to size and technical ability issues. Not that the players were too big and too unskilled, but that they were too small and too skilled to play the Stoke way. Parsons even went so far as to suggest which players Stoke passed upon, including Demba Ba and Hatem Ben Arfa.

Unless you are a know-nothing couch jockey named Alan making a living talking out of your backside on English telly, you wouldn't have had to be a rocket scientist to have thrown those names out to any manager in the EPL a few years ago, so it would be easy to make jokes about Parsons and move on. But I believe the point Parsons was making, though completely unnecessary to make in the public eye, is much deeper than many may realize, and a very important subject to discuss.

Sticking with Stoke City for a moment, I'd like to play a little game called "what if". What if Tony Pulis were to get sacked? What then for Stoke City football club? If the players brought in from youth team to the senior side have been brought in with one style of play in mind, and a limited skill or stature set, surely any new manager brought in would have to be in the exact same mold as Tony Pulis. If not prepared to play with big strong physical players designed to live and breathe on set plays, the new manager would not only have to over turn the majority of the first team, but also every 9 year old who has walked in the door under Pulis's tenure. Vast amounts of time and money would need to be spent with the club in perpetual limbo as a reboot was performed.

On the other end of the spectrum, what if Arsene Wenger walks away from or gets sacked from Arsenal? Could "Big Sam" Allardyce or Jose Mourinho be given the job? Short answer, no. While "Big Sam" claims he could manage Real Madrid to glory, (I'm the one person on the planet who believes he could, partly because I believe almost anyone on earth could do as such) his style or that of Mourinho's does not fit with that of Arsenal. Be it Arsenal or Barcelona, when a 9 year old boy walks in the door, he is trained to play football the same way as he would in the reserves or with the first team. The game is built upon passing, possession, and technical skill, the opponent and their style of play be damned. While many consider this to be a flaw in the Wenger mind set, any new manager would have no choice but to play "the Arsenal way", without completely gutting and rebuilding the club from smallest child all the way up to the tea lady. (The tea lady is the most important person at a club, is she not? Or have I been misinformed?) While a much simpler task than the Stoke rebuild, if you don't hire the right "type" of manager, someone willing to play an attacking possession style, you are basically doomed to difficulties.

In the middle of the road, but a footballing oddity, are the clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, and now the likes of Chelsea, PSG, and Manchester City. (Even Hollywood FC Bayern Munchen to some extent, though Germany is a bit of Alice's Wonderland to the Dorothy's OZ that most football lives in.) What if Sir Alex Ferguson retires, Jose Mourinho walks, Roberto Mancini and Carlo Ancelotti get sacked, and the Chelsea flavor of the month gets persuaded by Uncle Roman's good buddy Vladmir Putin's good buddies to hang themselves? Quite simply, a cavalcade of top pros come in and out the door while the clubs continue to buy the best available talent they can find from youngest trainee to most revered veteran. When you buy the best available talent and employ whatever system you need to in order to be successful on the pitch, manager changes do little to shake the natural order of the club. (Fergie is a special case, I agree, but the aftermath of his going wouldn't change from all the rest.)

There are some glitches that will arise from this system as well, using Manchester United as an example, you may spend far over the odds for a player like Bebe because you believe another big club is sniffing around him. Or you may be renowned for your wingers over the generations, only to gallop to the current EPL title without any winger of note. Or you may bring in Juan Sebastien Veron for a hefty fee, only to misuse him due to his being overly gifted. There are bumps in the road with any system. Though a seemingly superior ideal, very few clubs can afford such a system, possibly not even Real Madrid or Manchester United.

In an earlier piece here on Off The Woodwork, I made the comment that Jurgen Klinsmann's performance with the US Mens National Team cannot be judged today, but will be judged in the future when the youth of today become the stars of the 2026 or 2030 World Cup. This is a slightly different spin on the concept that is my present topic, where you are not buying or scouting for a certain type of player, but scouting for a certain type of player while also trying to build those kinds of players from the lowest of youth levels on. Its an interesting sub topic, but the scope, desires, and challenges of national team scouting and identity differ in several ways to that of club football.

Over the years we have seen many clubs in English football reach the promised land of the top flight, only to change course midstream in order to play a more beautiful game. While the 70's, 80's, and 90's were littered with such clubs, I'd like to take a moment to look at two more recent top flight clubs to have the crisis of style, both concerning the aforementioned "Big Sam".

When "Big Sam" was appointed manager of West Ham United, many of the Hammers faithful were left uninspired. There was a famed academy at WHU, and the club was known for a certain style of play. Then in walked Sam, with a new vision. He pointed out that the beautiful football had seen the club relegated several times and seen many managers come and go based more on style than results. As the season has wound down many names have been floated as a replacement for Sam in the offseason, based on the desire of the fans to see something "worth watching". But the fact remains, WHU are in a solid place again in the EPL, with no danger of relegation or glory. The long ball football with occasional bursts of flair has worked. It gained promotion. It gained another season in the top flight.

Another link to the big man comes from the plight of Blackburn. Under Allardyce the club was consistently in the league. No glory, no threat of the drop. Then that was no longer good enough. The new owners of Blackburn (Venky's) wanted to play a more attractive and technical style of football. They wanted flair players like Ronaldinho to grace their pitch. In the short time since the replacement of "Big Sam", the club has gone through a succession of managers, been relegated once, and seem doomed to back-to-back relegations, finding them in England's League One, when they had been safely a top flight club just a few seasons before.

While this could be seen as a cautionary tale to anyone who employs Tony Pulis, Sam Allardyce, Alan Curbishly, or many other fine status quo managers, or any owner or chairman who fancies that their club starts playing beautiful football, I see this as a deeper issue than just the whim of a new ethos. I see this as a scouting failure at the deepest level. If a club, their fans, the owner, or the manager feel a change is needed once their "level" has been reached, be it top flight or just league football, there is no quick fix. Even bucket loads of cash aren't a quick fix if the infrastructure of the club is not properly supported for the desired changes.

Should Tony Pulis feel Stoke need a change, to be more attacking or skillful, as some of his purchases this past season seem to indicate, then shame on him for not effecting change from the bottom to the top himself. But also shame on Lindsay Parsons for not pushing harder with potential transfer targets that could affect that change. Shame on Parsons for not walking away from the job if it couldn't be done without a hand tied behind the back.

When it comes to changing the culture and style of any football club from what has gotten it promoted or solidified in a division, there is no quick fix. In my opinion it can only be done slowly, over years, with proper scouting from the youngest of youth to the most veteran first team player. There will be growing pains in such an endeavor, and perhaps some sliding down from the level the club has become accustomed to. But when it comes to addressing the style of any football club, I am of the firm belief that you need to scout the future, and if Tony Pulis finds himself looking for new employment, then so should Lindsay Parsons.

Until next time, I'll see you Off The Woodwork.