Mailbag: Ismaël & Watford, Flynn & Swindon, rookie managers...PLUS

...Doing A Forest, tweaking the play-offs and Wimbledon history.

Words: Ali Maxwell

Hi everyone, it’s Mailbag day! We’re in the middle of the Play-Off Semi Final second legs, one of the great weeks in the EFL calendar. Hope you’re enjoying them as much as we are. While recovering from my night at Kenilworth Road, I tackled some of your hard-hitting questions.

Absolutely love doing these mailbags so please feel free to comments on any post with a query and we will keep taking the time to respond. We start with a doozy from Rory Purcell…

Rory Purcell asks:

How do you assess rookie managers in the EFL this year?

For every Kieran McKenna & Michael Carrick, there are more who ended up struggling (Kevin Betsy, Mark Fotheringham, Danny Schofield, Duncan Ferguson)

I’ll answer your question with a question!

How do you assess experienced managers in the EFL this year? For every Neil Warnock and Steve Evans, there are more experienced managers who ended up struggling (Chris Wilder, Steve Bruce, Mick McCarthy, Karl Robinson).

I personally think that trying to categorise managers can be a bit of a waste of time.

There are so many reasons for a managerial tenure not working out. Some of those, of course, are down to the competency of the manager. But I think that’s probably the case to a lesser degree than most are willing to accept.

Often, a manager struggles because the club itself is in bad shape: those above the manager are not providing the necessary support, or perhaps the squad is unsuited for the level or for a certain style. I dare say that if you’d put Kieran McKenna or Michael Carrick at Crawley Town in the summer of 2022 or Forest Green in January 2023, they’d have struggled too. So I won’t be writing anyone off based on one poor job, personally.

We are in a position where the manager still seems to be considered the most important thing by miles for the success of a football club, despite repeated evidence in recent years that that is probably not the case (hello Brighton, Luton, Argyle).

Some rookie managers thrived - those ones tended to have very, very good players. Some rookie managers struggled - those ones tended to work for clubs with a talent disadvantage or off-field uncertainty.

Rory Purcell:

So, do you feel it's a risk worth taking for an EFL Chairman to appoint a first-time manager?

Yes, but not for every club in the 72.

I guess one of the hardest things is working out whether a rookie manager is ready, psychologically, for the stern test of management. The test of running a dressing room. Running a staff. Being the face of a club, and handling the media and the pressure from fans. Those are crucial aspects, which can dictate success and failure, and no rookie manager can show evidence of how they will or won’t fare.

But that’s a key skill of recruiting the world over, in business and in sport. It's about making a prediction based on background, body of work, interviews and referencing.

As a Chairman, in order to make appointments that will suit your club, you have to start by being honest with yourself about what state your club is in and what your expectations are.

You need to be logical and understand risk. Understand that a high % of managers get sacked before they reach the two-year mark. Does that mean a high % of managers are bad? No, clearly not. So understand that and realise that what you do and how you run the club has as much impact on success or failure as the manager you are about to hire.

Belief in the manager has to be very strong. Give them authority and support, and make sure the staff around them have clearly defined roles and are accountable for the work that they do.

Don’t just focus on who the manager is, but every member of staff. Are they ready for a test? Can they perform their role? Are they ready to step up if the manager is struggling or if the manager leaves?

I also believe you have to have a predetermined, honest way of measuring and tracking managerial performance, not based on the emotions of a bad swing of results. The manager is not always bad because you lose, or good because you win. And by knowing your club, by being rational, honest and by setting clearly defined goals and targets, you will have a better perception of how a manager is performing in their role.

Luke on Twitter asks:

Thoughts on Watford’s appointment of Ismaël?

I don’t love it. But, honestly, I don’t know what appointment Watford could have made that I would have instinctively loved.

There seems to be so much to sort out in terms of playing personnel and, of course, those making decisions on playing personnel. We have to hope that Technical Director Ben Manga is a) competent and b) allowed to do his job. I would be more worried about the latter.

Ismaël’s results at Barnsley were pretty amazing. Ismaël’s results at West Brom were underwhelming. Both times, he played an uber-direct style of play, intense and physical, and made no apologies for it. When results are good, that is fine. When results are poor, that becomes a sticking point. Then again, you could say the same about Russell Martin’s style, too.

But… WBA’s xG generated was second best in the league under Ismaël. Their xG against was the second best in the league. In particular, they generated a lot of chances from set pieces, chances that were rarely taken. The finishing was poor. Were the players tired? Stressed? Was that impacting their composure? How much of that was down to the manager? It’s always hard to say. But it’s become clear in the 14 months since his departure that Valerien Ismael wasn’t necessarily the main issue at WBA.

Now, for this style to be effective, you need to build a squad that suits it.

Is it smart to build a physically dominant side, perhaps sacrificing technical ability, knowing that if Ismaël fails and you sack him, you’ll probably hire another manager that’ll probably want to play a different style? What happens then?

Is this the best tactical approach for a team that should still be able to have a Top 6 budget and therefore should be able to build a squad with a talent advantage over most of the division? I’m not sure.

Look - I’m pretty down on Watford at the moment. Is the appointment of Valerien Ismaël a Top 3 reason for that? No. I still think he’s a good manager, on balance. I think he builds teams that are horrible to play against, teams that take a lot of shots and don’t face many shots.

Come the end of August, everything may look smart, joined up, sensible. I have my doubts. Am I confident Ismaël is finally the one to last a whole year? No.

The Near Post asks:

If you could (or had to!) make one change to the EFL play-off format, what would it be and why?

I like the format, so you won’t see me going to bat for big tweaks. I personally like a four-team format rather than six. I don’t think a team that finishes 8th of 24 should have a shot at winning promotion.

I also like two-legged ties for the semi-final.

The discussion about whether or not it’s better to have the home fixture in the second leg is interesting to me. I think most of the discussion comes from a position of outcome bias - “this happened and I don’t like it, therefore I think the rules should change because I’ve decided that the reason for defeat was playing the away leg first".

I believe the #data would suggest that having the home leg second is better. A bit like taking first in a shootout. Though that may need checking!

I’d like to trial letting the higher-ranked team choose whether they host the home fixture first or second. It’s a clear benefit to finishing higher, and would cut out the moaning when a team loses and they point to the current away/home split.

This would probably not be feasible for policing and logistics reasons, but imagine the mind-games that would surround it? Beautiful.

Jason asks:

Weird left turn appointment of Flynn at Swindon, hit or miss?

Hit or miss? That remains to be seen, but I agree with the terminology of ‘weird left turn appointment’.

One summer Swindon are completely taken by the idea of using a Technical Director to help oversee the football side —signing ‘undervalued, underdeveloped’ players and playing a possession-based style of play. Within a year, they completely change the approach to “Hire Mike Flynn and Giving Him The Keys”. What does that say about those running the club? It doesn't scream 'conviction' to me, and I think that’s an important aspect of running a club.

Were results this season as good as previous seasons, such as 2019/20 or 2021/22? No. Do I think that means something is hugely wrong? Not necessarily.

My understanding is that the playing budget was smaller, and I think the club were clear about that. If that was the case, the ‘undervalued, underdeveloped’ approach made some sense to me, while also making me less confident of short-term success in the 22/23 season.

I don’t know how Sandro Di Michele works, I don’t know how smart he is or isn’t.

I thought many of the signings were pretty good, and I think some will look even better after another year or so. But it seems clear with hindsight that some of these players would struggle with the physical rigours of a 46-game season, and that a better balance of experience and robustness would have likely helped achieve a slightly higher league position.

But perhaps lessons would’ve have been learned, and more balance achieved this summer? Personally, I like a bit of identity. I don’t mind a bit of Doing Things Differently. Given another year or so down the same path, things could have been very interesting indeed. We’ll never know! Now it feels they're just trying to be Another Standard L2 Team and hope that makes them better without any particular evidence to support that it will.

What was it about Mike Flynn's Walsall side that they liked so much? Because what I liked about it, when they were in good form, was how solid they were, particularly with a back 3 of Monthe, Daniels, White. But that was also an issue - they were incredible dull to watch and poor going forward. And Swindon don't have many players that resemble Flynn’s squad at Walsall.

If they’re going to be the best version of a Flynn team (which BTW, Walsall weren’t this season), it’s likely a whole new team, surely? Who is signing those players - the manager himself? Is that likely to work? Is that cost-effective? Is that likely to provide value in the long term?

Yeah, bit of a weird left turn and I’m not a huge fan of it.

Josh asks:

Thoughts on how Ipswich and Plymouth will do in the Championship? How important is their recruitment this summer?

*Presses play on soothing music.*

We’re having a break from Plymouth Argyle and Ipswich Town discourse until both fanbases have calmed down from their Big Few Weeks.

Everyone is very happy with their season, and no-one - ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE - is rattled by the other, so please let’s respect that.

(Also, I alluded to some of this in a previous Mailbag, pre-promotion.)

Tom asks:

For Burnley/Sheff United/playoff winner, would you go for a Forest approach in PL? Or stay with what worked in Champ even at risk of being relegated?

I don’t think either team needs to Do A Forest. Nor did Forest for that matter.

I would be massively concerned with Sheffield United as a business if, in their current ownership situation, they splashed a load of the PL cash on new players. I would worry about who they would sign, where they would fit, whether they would upset the balance on the pitch, and certainly the bank balance off it. Unless substantial and dependable investment arrives in the next two months, I think they have to try and make sensible additions while trying to stay up with a similar squad.

I feel that Burnley are in a different position. I think that a few smart and ambitious additions in key areas, rather than a complete overhaul of the playing squad, is the best option to continue their upward momentum while also adding quality.

Fulham have gone up, added in 3/4 key areas without going crazy, and have thrived.

If Burnley can find the equivalents to Joao Palhinha, Andreas Pereira and Bernd Leno they should have enough to stay up and go again summer 2024 rather than try and do it all in one window.

Ivan asks:

With both MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon annually celebrating their historic 1988 FA Cup win, who in your mind has the greater claim… (if any)

This is a difficult and emotive topic, however, the matter is clear in my eyes. In my opinion, AFC Wimbledon are the clear rights holders of Wimbledon FC history.

I don’t understand why Milton Keynes Dons would still claim the history of Wimbledon FC. For me, a football club, to the extent that it can be defined, is more about the people involved (fans, players and staff) and geography (the area it represents). On both those fronts, I think it’s obvious that AFC Wimbledon is the continuation of Wimbledon FC.

Perhaps claiming the history acts as some form of justification for MK’s existence. But they don’t need that anymore. They exist, and they have done for a long time.

The origins are unusual and unpleasant and unacceptable in many ways. The club is - by almost every standard - a good, solid EFL club that moves up and down the leagues, has a local fanbase, and does great things in the Milton Keynes community. Much like other EFL clubs.

But Wimbledon FC lives on in AFC Wimbledon. To me, that’s clear. And they are the club and fanbase that should celebrate the great FA Cup win of 1988.

Thanks for reading…go well!