Rasmus Ankersen

[Toadhall Saint]

2 hours ago, Dman said:

1 time you could argue is a ‘freak results’, 2 times, not so much. 

Also the trouble is, we had a more than 9 1-0 (or narrow defeats) that followed the second 9-0… so it’s something he would be very, very bothered about I expect. 

Rather than ‘freak’, It is (or at least was) a mentality issue. Our squad was weak as piss mentally and a manager who was unable and/or unwilling to adapt his tactics to play more defensively when we went down to 10 men.

Thankfully, I think we’ve now got rid of a few players who simply gave up and couldn’t be arsed when the going got tough and Ralph seems to have learned from his mistakes. 

Who have we got rid of?

[Toussaint]

On 04/01/2022 at 18:00, Matthew Le God said:

Hopefully some of you find this interesting!

I must watch this, some day…

[Dark Munster]

7 hours ago, Toussaint said:

I must watch this, some day…

He really is an absolute fraud isn’t he.

Surely Dragan must’ve figured that out by now. I can only guess that he can only get rid of him by having to also end the whole SR running of the club, which is currently attached to our club like that face hugger in Alien. 

[Toussaint]

47 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

He really is an absolute fraud isn’t he.

Surely Dragan must’ve figured that out by now. I can only guess that he can only get rid of him by having to also end the whole SR running of the club, which is currently attached to our club like that face hugger in Alien. 

He’s like a cult leader, seems to have plenty of his disciples prepared to drink his Kool-aid 

[Wade Garrett]

11 hours ago, Toussaint said:

I must watch this, some day…

He is full of shit.  Dragan must be simple to be sucked in by his complete bullshit.

[Turkish]

can we start calling him Wankersen again yet?

[Toussaint]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

can we start calling him Wankersen again yet?

Definitely, although his full title is Rambo Wankerson, it has more gravitas that way.

[trousers]

Apologies if this has already been covered somewhere on the forum but this has been bugging me the last few weeks, so better out than in...!

When Ankersen was at Brentford, he co-presided over a club where the playing philosophy was the opposite to what he and Sports Republic have implemented here at Southampton. 

Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he think: "We created a successful team at Brentford playing a certain way, let's do the same at Southampton?"

To me, it smacks of us being used as some kind of experimentation... We already know his over-riding philosophy in life is: "if it ain't broke, break it". 

Is there a point where he sits back and reflects: "you know what, we've tried a different approach at Southampton but it's not working, let's revert to the tried and tested approach that I helped implement at Brentford" or does ego always triumph over common sense in these scenarios?

Don't most top businessmen attempt to replicate success rather than ignore it?

 

Edited September 1 by trousers

[Ex Lion Tamer]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

Apologies if this has already been covered somewhere on the forum but this has been bugging me the last few weeks, so better out than in...!

When Ankersen was at Brentford, he co-presided over a club where the playing philosophy was the opposite to what he and Sports Republic have implemented here at Southampton. 

Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he think: "We created a successful team at Brentford playing a certain way, let's do the same at Southampton?"

To me, it smacks of us being used as some kind of experimentation... We already know his over-riding philosophy in life is: "if it ain't broke, break it". 

Is there a point where he sits back and reflects: "you know what, we've tried a different approach at Southampton but it's not working, let's revert to the tried and tested approach that I helped implement at Brentford" or does ego always triumph over common sense in these scenarios?

Don't most top businessmen attempt to replicate success rather than ignore it?

 

Weren't Brentford playing it out from the back yesterday? They were just doing it well

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

Weren't Brentford playing it out from the back yesterday? They were just doing it well

Don't most teams "play out from the back" as a default these days but the difference being they aren't dogmatically wedded to doing it 100% of the time during a game? Brentford had 37% of the possession yesterday, highlighting that they aren't as obsessed about keeping the ball as we are. 

Edited September 1 by trousers

[saintant]

17 minutes ago, trousers said:

Apologies if this has already been covered somewhere on the forum but this has been bugging me the last few weeks, so better out than in...!

When Ankersen was at Brentford, he co-presided over a club where the playing philosophy was the opposite to what he and Sports Republic have implemented here at Southampton. 

Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he think: "We created a successful team at Brentford playing a certain way, let's do the same at Southampton?"

To me, it smacks of us being used as some kind of experimentation... We already know his over-riding philosophy in life is: "if it ain't broke, break it". 

Is there a point where he sits back and reflects: "you know what, we've tried a different approach at Southampton but it's not working, let's revert to the tried and tested approach that I helped implement at Brentford" or does ego always triumph over common sense in these scenarios?

Don't most top businessmen attempt to replicate success rather than ignore it?

 

RA wasn't the brains behind Brentford. I think it was Phil Giles.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

RA wasn't the brains behind Brentford. I think it was Phil Giles.

Yeah, realise that, but Ankersen was there for 5 years and one would therefore assume he was happy with the philosophy that was deployed there?

[Badger]

19 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

Weren't Brentford playing it out from the back yesterday? They were just doing it well

More significantly though Brentford weren’t making suicidal mistakes at the back, and had people who could score goals.

No fucking ‘system’ or ‘philosophy’ is able to routinely cope with the first, and the absence of the second . Although the longer you dwell on the ball in and around your own penalty area the greater the risk ( which doesn’t seem to factor into RM’s  thinking) 

Edited September 1 by Badger

[Dark Munster]

10 hours ago, trousers said:

Yeah, realise that, but Ankersen was there for 5 years and one would therefore assume he was happy with the philosophy that was deployed there?

He an ego the size of Everest, so I doubt he'd want to emulate someone else's successful philosophy. He wants a new Ankersen way of running a football club that nobody else has thought of. Another book would come out of it too.

Always remember, if it isn't broken, break it.

[Cumbria Saint]

On 24/04/2024 at 16:50, Toussaint said:

I must watch this, some day…

Well, I just watched it and found it very interesting. With a low current points score and a poor goal difference it would be fascinating to hear his current views on our situation and how he intends to rectify it.

[Whitey Grandad]

On 01/09/2024 at 21:14, Dark Munster said:

He an ego the size of Everest, so I doubt he'd want to emulate someone else's successful philosophy. He wants a new Ankersen way of running a football club that nobody else has thought of. Another book would come out of it too.

Always remember, if it isn't broken, break it.

But what if it’s not just broken but really, really f****d?

[notnowcato]

We were really, really fucked 15 months ago, on and off the pitch. We’re still work in progress, which may include a change in playing philosophy but more likely a tweaking rather than anything transformative. 

[Dusic]

On 01/09/2024 at 10:00, trousers said:

Apologies if this has already been covered somewhere on the forum but this has been bugging me the last few weeks, so better out than in...!

When Ankersen was at Brentford, he co-presided over a club where the playing philosophy was the opposite to what he and Sports Republic have implemented here at Southampton. 

Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he think: "We created a successful team at Brentford playing a certain way, let's do the same at Southampton?"

To me, it smacks of us being used as some kind of experimentation... We already know his over-riding philosophy in life is: "if it ain't broke, break it". 

Is there a point where he sits back and reflects: "you know what, we've tried a different approach at Southampton but it's not working, let's revert to the tried and tested approach that I helped implement at Brentford" or does ego always triumph over common sense in these scenarios?

Don't most top businessmen attempt to replicate success rather than ignore it?

 

Clearly Nathan Jones was his selection and his style (in theory) is fairly close to what Brentford do: direct, physical etc. It didnt work for obvious reasons.

Since then, he employed Wilcox to implement a different style across the club and its been successful with one season played and one promotion achieved.

I recall when Wilcox came in he said that when he looked at us across the relegation season we had some gamrs where we got results but it was basically down to luck rather than a specific plan being effective (Everton away under Jones for example). He then apppointed RM with the obvious idea being that by having a clear way of playing and a clear style being coached you are more likely to get a consistent level of performance that helps you to win games. That was clearly demonstrated last season. He also aligned recruitment and the academy to the same philosophy - all very logical to the point where Man Utd (who could have hured anyone they liked) asked him to try and do the same for them.

In summary - not quite sure what your point is, as what has been done for the last year clearly has worked and seemingly Rasmus' direct involvment has lessened anyway. Yes it will need tweaking but certainly zero to be gained by ripping it all up and going back to a total opposite style.

 

[trousers]

2 hours ago, Dusic said:

Clearly Nathan Jones was his selection and his style (in theory) is fairly close to what Brentford do: direct, physical etc. It didnt work for obvious reasons.

Since then, he employed Wilcox to implement a different style across the club and its been successful with one season played and one promotion achieved.

I recall when Wilcox came in he said that when he looked at us across the relegation season we had some gamrs where we got results but it was basically down to luck rather than a specific plan being effective (Everton away under Jones for example). He then apppointed RM with the obvious idea being that by having a clear way of playing and a clear style being coached you are more likely to get a consistent level of performance that helps you to win games. That was clearly demonstrated last season. He also aligned recruitment and the academy to the same philosophy - all very logical to the point where Man Utd (who could have hured anyone they liked) asked him to try and do the same for them.

In summary - not quite sure what your point is, as what has been done for the last year clearly has worked and seemingly Rasmus' direct involvment has lessened anyway. Yes it will need tweaking but certainly zero to be gained by ripping it all up and going back to a total opposite style.

 

Cheers for the thoughts Dusic 👍

Unlike most, I tend not to have a specific "point" in mind when I post on here, rather I just do a lot of pondering out loud without thinking too much about why I'm thinking said thoughts...!

I agree that "RussBall" (or should that be "JaseBall"...?!) worked ok last season, but I guess we're yet to see how much of that was down to playing in an inferior league.

I'm still confident that Russ can make it work in the Premier League too. Time will tell of course...

Edited September 7 by trousers

[Dusic]

13 minutes ago, trousers said:

Cheers for the thoughts Dusic 👍

Unlike most, I tend not to have a specific "point" in mind when I post on here, rather I just do a lot of pondering out loud without thinking too much about why I'm thinking said thoughts...!

I agree that "RussBall" (or should that be "JaseBall"...?!) worked ok last season, but I guess we're yet to see how much of that was down to playing in an inferior league.

I'm still confident that Russ can make it work in the Premier League too. Time will tell of course...

Whether specifically RM's interpretation 'works' in the PL we will see, and even if it does there is still a high chance we go down because player for player we have one of the three weakest teams.

The wider point is it is no good to anyone to continually chop and change everything.

If we end up sacking RM, his replacement will be somone with similar views but a slightly different interpretation rather than someone who wants us to revert back into a direct, out of possession focuses team.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

3 hours ago, Dusic said:

Clearly Nathan Jones was his selection and his style (in theory) is fairly close to what Brentford do: direct, physical etc. It didnt work for obvious reasons.

Since then, he employed Wilcox to implement a different style across the club and its been successful with one season played and one promotion achieved.

I recall when Wilcox came in he said that when he looked at us across the relegation season we had some gamrs where we got results but it was basically down to luck rather than a specific plan being effective (Everton away under Jones for example). He then apppointed RM with the obvious idea being that by having a clear way of playing and a clear style being coached you are more likely to get a consistent level of performance that helps you to win games. That was clearly demonstrated last season. He also aligned recruitment and the academy to the same philosophy - all very logical to the point where Man Utd (who could have hured anyone they liked) asked him to try and do the same for them.

In summary - not quite sure what your point is, as what has been done for the last year clearly has worked and seemingly Rasmus' direct involvment has lessened anyway. Yes it will need tweaking but certainly zero to be gained by ripping it all up and going back to a total opposite style.

 

Agreed. Ankersen did initially try the Brentford approach here. And it could be argued Selles was also in that mould. Always felt another time another situation, RS could have worked out for us but the dross he inherited and the atmosphere at the club at the time worked against him. Reading fans love him and given the constraints there, he's working wonders.

But like you said, Ankersen was under pressure to find a new style and manager and along comes Wilcox and RM. Personally, I don't like it but it's trendy. Why managers and teams can't mix up styles of play, I don't understand. Anyway, Wilcox has gone and Man Utd seem to be freewheeling backwards so it'll be interesting to see how they fare in their next game!!

[trousers]

22 hours ago, Dusic said:

If we end up sacking RM, his replacement will be somone with similar views but a slightly different interpretation rather than someone who wants us to revert back into a direct, out of possession focuses team.

Doesn't that depend on whether or not Ankersen fancies doing another tactical U-turn, like he did with the Jones -> Martin (via Selles) appointments...?

[Toussaint]

7 minutes ago, trousers said:

Doesn't that depend on whether or not Ankersen fancies doing another tactical U-turn, like he did with the Jones -> Martin (via Selles) appointments...?

What is Rambo’s current role and responsibilities? Is it still his call?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, trousers said:

Doesn't that depend on whether or not Ankersen fancies doing another tactical U-turn, like he did with the Jones -> Martin (via Selles) appointments...?

How often will he be able to convince Dragan that his new, innovative, left field idea is a sure fire success, while standing in the rubble of all his previous sure fire successes? Perhaps Wilcox will get the blame, if they switch away from this one.

 

Edited September 8 by Holmes_and_Watson

[Dusic]

22 minutes ago, trousers said:

Doesn't that depend on whether or not Ankersen fancies doing another tactical U-turn, like he did with the Jones -> Martin (via Selles) appointments...?

I don't see why he would change like that again having achieved success with a possession based style, and setup the whole operation(academy, recruitment etc) based on it.

Also not sure its even his call, although he would obviously have an input.

Everything from the club over the last year or so has stressed the importance of alignment and a cohesive club wide plan so it would be quite some shift.

I would think far more likely it would be subtle - and also think it is far off anyway seeing as RM achieved a promotion in his only season in charge and we have played 3 games in the league this season.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

8 minutes ago, Dusic said:

I don't see why he would change like that again having achieved success with a possession based style, and setup the whole operation(academy, recruitment etc) based on it.

Also not sure its even his call, although he would obviously have an input.

Everything from the club over the last year or so has stressed the importance of alignment and a cohesive club wide plan so it would be quite some shift.

I would think far more likely it would be subtle - and also think it is far off anyway seeing as RM achieved a promotion in his only season in charge and we have played 3 games in the league this season.

I thought the Ralph playbook was going to have much the same impact across the club. While SR weren't there for all of that, I think it was something they bought into for good reasons, from the start.

But it shows that they're willing to make significant adjustments to it, and then jettison it. I was going to say, "if they felt it was needed". But by "needed", it was trying to stop us getting relegated. And they went through enough systems, that I'm not convinced they have one that they value above all others. 4 managers in their 4 seasons of involvement.

On achieving success, it depends on what is considered to be a success. If that's sustainability in the PL, then the current approach, has only got us promoted, with a chance of starting that. Too early to tell if it will work.

[Dark Munster]

5 hours ago, Toussaint said:

What is Rambo’s current role and responsibilities? Is it still his call?

I’m sure his massive ego won’t let him sit quietly in the background and let others make the decisions without him. Which is bad news for us as he has that fatal combination of thinking he’s a genius while being a blithering idiot. 

[chuz]

5 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I thought the Ralph playbook was going to have much the same impact across the club. While SR weren't there for all of that, I think it was something they bought into for good reasons, from the start.

But it shows that they're willing to make significant adjustments to it, and then jettison it. I was going to say, "if they felt it was needed". But by "needed", it was trying to stop us getting relegated. And they went through enough systems, that I'm not convinced they have one that they value above all others. 4 managers in their 4 seasons of involvement.

On achieving success, it depends on what is considered to be a success. If that's sustainability in the PL, then the current approach, has only got us promoted, with a chance of starting that. Too early to tell if it will work.

I think these "cross club" philosophies are conjured up whenever anyone feels like a change. As you mentioned Ralph apparently spent the whole of Covid writing a "playbook" for the whole club to be deployed at every level.  Yet after he was sacked the club chose a manager with a completely different philosophy (in Jones), before going back to the Ralph way again (in Selles) before ditching that for possession football.  I suspect they simply looked at Burnley getting promoted from the Championship and decided to get a manager that played that way.

When Martin moves on I guess the new manager will be either a clone of his (if he's successful and poached by another club) or a different style (if the possession football gets found out in the Premier League. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, chuz said:

I think these "cross club" philosophies are conjured up whenever anyone feels like a change. As you mentioned Ralph apparently spent the whole of Covid writing a "playbook" for the whole club to be deployed at every level.  Yet after he was sacked the club chose a manager with a completely different philosophy (in Jones), before going back to the Ralph way again (in Selles) before ditching that for possession football.  I suspect they simply looked at Burnley getting promoted from the Championship and decided to get a manager that played that way.

When Martin moves on I guess the new manager will be either a clone of his (if he's successful and poached by another club) or a different style (if the possession football gets found out in the Premier League. 

Burnley is a good point. I was thinking they were modelling themselves as Manchester City-lite. To the extent of getting some of their breakout talent, playing within similar systems and looking to either sell them back to City (who had buy out clauses) or to other clubs, also looking to emulated them, at a high level.

Add in some left field, data driven signings, while driving down individual wages to increase sell on potential and profit.

I agree on the club philosophies for nearly everyone. In Quarter 4 of 2022, the Beeb said (apart from Gerard leaving Villa), PL tenure was 734 days. Across the 92 clubs (91, for that Villa reason) it was 537 days. At the time. Klopp was pushing that average up.

Only the longest serving managers, get to be part of building a club philosophy. Some do try to find a similar manager to get more out of the same players. The majority just move on to the next manager who they are impressed enough by, to take a punt on. Despite all the talk of "projects"