I think the Brad Bobley videos explain the situation quite well: he was seen as a joke even by the players, from the moment he was announced. So he never had a chance, even if he had stayed and managed a few good transfers. Failure was inevitable.
I'd argue a major part of managing is to gain the confidence and backing of your team, no matter your history. Bob failed at that. Brad Bobley seems an accurate nickname however, as he sure bobbled the situation.
I think he did well to pick up the points he did. I wasn't expecting to see an American coaching at top level Europe for decades yet. Pretty cool that he got a couple of wins. Too bad he couldn't have gotten the transfer window.
Why do people think the Swansea players weren't on-board? The problems under Bradley seemed to be a lack of organisation or a particular game plan. Just because some sections of the media made an issue out of Bradley's nationality doesn't mean that the players did. Marco Silva's appointment at Hull drew ridicule from various pundits but the team are doing great under him. I don't think the anti-american bias in some sections of the sports media was a significant factor in Bradley's performance or sacking.
same here. I doubt Bradley would have made much of a difference positive or negative. But when the next Yank arrives in the PL say in 2032 i'm sure Bradley's name will be brought up as a point of mockery
The next American coach in the top league will be Dolo, and by 2032 he will be a standard of American coach, not Bradley.
"the next Yank arrives in the PL" was the key phrase Bob may have had more patience from critics had he gone to the Bundesliga
Agree with the first. Not sure about anyone patience when results are that horrible. They were right firing him. He knows that.
I think for me the PL shows how much of a cutthroat business it can be managing at the top. Not unheard of a club having like 3 managers in a calendar year. Bob was out of his element though had he gotten a little more leeway or sympathy maybe 1 or more matches might have changed the outcome.
I agree he failed at that. When Swansea was leaking 3 goals a game I said he had to go. At the same time, I think its not unreasonable to believe that he wasn't given a fair chance.
These things can be symptomatic of players not being on board. I'm not sure that was the case, but I think its not an unreasonable assumption in this case.
Yup, it was a mixture of both things IMO. He had to prove himself fast, he had no margin of error --and he just wasn't good enough to do it.
Well if the comment about treating pros like youth players is true,I don't know that he would succeed in any top 4 league.
Just to add some more from the podcast, Cole Grossman was also there and kind of agreed with Conrad. He said he could see how Bob's approach could backfire with established pros but it was perfect for that Stabaek team because they were mostly made up of cast offs from other teams and promoted youth players.
I think it's a completely unreasonable assumption. Plenty of managers of various nationalities, including English, have been given PL jobs and done badly; why should we assume that it's due to anti-american bias in Bob's case? Ultimately the players are professionals and will want to perform well, either so that they're picked for Swansea or so they can secure a good transfer elsewhere. Obviously they'd also lose money if they're relegated with Swansea, as most contracts include clauses for salary deductions on relegated. Bob rotated a bit, which gave fringe players a chance to stake their claims for a first team place, but all of them looked terrible almost every week. I appreciate that, as Americans, some people on here will feel aggrieved at any sections of the press that poked fun at Bob's nationality, but the press is the press and idiot sports journalists write shit articles every day, but I think making an assumption that the players took issue with Bob's nationality (particularly when the players are from all over the world themselves and aren't a homogeneous group) is very unfair.
When a new manager is appointed, there's usually an improvement in results, at least in the short term. In the absence of that, you would hope that there would at least be some improvements in some aspects of the team's performances, even if it doesn't equate to points immediately. Swansea looked mediocre under Guidolin and the football was pretty boring. That said, Guidolin only got 7 games at the start of the season, had an unfortunate loss against hull, a decent win against Burnley and then had 5 tough games. In the tough run of fixtures, he got a draw against Chelsea and 4 losses (although the performances in the losses weren't generally that bad). Bob took over for an easier run of fixtures but results and performances significantly deteriorated. There's so much money in the premier league that underperforming managers don't get much of a chance to put their stamp on a team; it's the nature of the league. Given what was at stake for the club and just how poor they were under Bradley, I don't think it's right to say he wasn't given a fair chance. He was given much more of a chance than Guidolin, even though he performed worse.
I was responding to the comment that players weren't on board. This can be due to anti-American bias (it exists, and not just in the press) or other reasons (maybe they didn't respect his CV or simply his methods).
Guidolin 1. Won exactly 1 of his final 12 matches dating back to the end of the season last year. Bob wasn't hired because Swansea was exceeding expectations. 2. Guidolin's health was rumored to be a factor in his dismissal. http://www.football-italia.net/92351/swansea-doubt-guidolin-health According to The Sun, the reasons for the club’s determination to fire Guidolin have more basis than simply his results. The Italian had a lung infection in March and was forced to miss the 2-1 win at Arsenal because he was in hospital on a drip. Guidolin has suffered from stress-related illness in the past while he was at Udinese and took up yoga to deal with these issues. He retired from management in 2014, but only worked as a club co-ordinator at Watford, Udinese and Granada for one year – all sides run by the Pozzo family. It is possible the stress of Premier League management has exacerbated those past problems and The Sun newspaper suggests his health is a concern for the Swansea City owners. 3. Unlike Bob, Guidolin had an entire preseason with Swansea, hopefully, to get the players on board and headed in the right direction. 4. Presumably, he had an influence in Swansea's summer transfers including Mike Van der Hoom and Borja Baston at that time, the most expensive player in Swan's history. Neither has produced. 5. By any account, the only folks who wanted Bob were the owners. Perhaps, in your world, this is a recipe for being treated fairly. My own experience might suggest otherwise. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/swansea-city-fans-frustrated-angry-8972741 Anyway, you're on a roll. Don't let me slow you down.
Fair enough, I misunderstood. Quite possible that they weren't 'on-board' with his training methods. Not so sure about the CV - Swansea have had previous managers with less experience than Bob. As I've said, I'd be surprised if anti-american bias was a factor for the playing staff, but I guess we're going to disagree on that.
1. I think you have your stats wrong. If you're talking league games only, he won 3 of his last 12 (and secured good draws against Chelsea and Man City). Swansea's final three games last season were wins over West Ham and Liverpool, plus the Man City draw. It's 4 wins in 12 if you include cup games too. 2. Possible, but 'according to the Sun' isn't a phrase I attach much reliability to. 3. Yes he had the whole pre-season, but I maintain Swansea weren't performing particularly badly under him at the start of this season. I think he was fired prematurely because the board wanted to appoint Bradley. 4. I don't think managers at Swansea have much say in terms of players bought; the board tend to conduct a lot of the business themselves. The one transfer I think Guidolin likely had a say in was Paloschi. For example, I don't think Clement has had much say in Swansea's recent acquisitions. Olsson and Carroll were long term targets. 5. I agree no-one other than the board wanted Bradley, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was treated unfairly. If Swansea were playing well or getting results the atmosphere wouldn't have become so toxic. If Bradley had been sacked in spite of good results or performances, I'd agree.
You'd have never guessed it reading the fan forums. Which managers? We're not far off. I think if it existed it played a very minor part - Bob wasn't good enough, quick enough (and maybe he wouldn't have been even with more time). But biases exist - American players have said they've had to battle biases - were their coaches unprofessional? I would guess most players were professional and most gave him a fair chance. I wouldn't be surprised if some judged him based on his nationality - maybe even on an almost subconscious level - and it had some negative effect.
Garry Monk was a complete rookie, as was Martinez (but the latter was appointed when Swansea were in the lower leagues). Brendan Rogers had a pretty modest CV too.