Originally Posted by
Keyser Soze
I have seen this debate over the decades so many times. A fascinating debate, but one that hasn’t changed conclusion for me since I first started taking an interest in football in the 1980s, and I saw the same answer across many other areas of life since.
The pattern so often goes like this. For a while we have a manager whose players play pretty football but fail to deliver. He peppers his team with fancy Dans who got show a bit of skill but lacked the mindset to win and deliver often enough to meet the club’s targets. For this, think Dave Jones, or for a worse example of failure, Solsjkaer or Trollope.Then in comes a man who overcompensates by building a team of brutish, fit men who mainly lack class but are tough to beat. Think Mackay / Warnock, or when it goes wrong, Russell Slade. Often these swings are due the fact we are rarely flush with cash and have to choose between cheaper available players, who often fall into either category. Skillful but weak,brutish but less classy. Occasionally you get a bargain and get both but these are atypical. The only time this often changes is when we are flush with cash and can pick up better quality players and choose a bit more, or if you hire an exceptionally good manager whose methods are advanced. But as is so often the case, we do not have that luxury. So we have a simple choice. Stylish failure? Or being brutishly hard to beat but standing a change of making it? To me the answer is no different to other aspects of life. Heard these lines before?
"Perspiration, not just inspiration". “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.
Different quotes. Same message. But how many people still don’t get it, or meet it with a wall of cynicism, when the evidence is in clear plain sight? How many still have this endless debate to which the answer is so obvious if you want any person or group to do well? You see it in all fields of life. Businessmen, football, rugby, careers, family life, politics. Think about it. How many times have you heard these lines?
“I had a great business idea but didn’t do it. He took the risk and did it”.
“He tried so many times but in the end he just got lucky”.
“I was way more talented at <whatever sport> in school than him, but he made it”
“Ooh he’s so boring all he does is work”
Isn’t it "strange" that most of the time success comes to those who most of the time are mentally harder, fitter and keep going? An idea isn't enough. Creativity isn't enough. Ability isn't enough. Winners are those who go a little further. And when things get difficult they don’t duck or dive but keep fighting until they eventually come out on the other side. Those who do better are those that do more. More effort often means more output, which means more performance. It's the 5-10% of extraness on top of their ability that nudges them ahead of those not willing to put in the same effort. In sport it is called "The Theory of Marginal Gains" - a jargonistic and posh way of saying "finding many or several ways to do just a bit more". No magic formula, but a simple rule of sport, and simple rule of life. So simple, but many don’t do it because mentally it is too much to ask for most.
Warnock epitomises that. It's just that he applies those simple rules into the realm of football. So do his players. It is the only and simple explanation as to why light-mentality footballers that Dave Jones selected so often buckled under pressure, and routinely failed at promotion, and why Warnock has a litany of success in this division in getting promotion. No magic formula, but a simple rule of life – applied to The Championship. We don’t spend like Wolves. And I don’t want us failing like Trollope. I want us to win. Win at all costs. And whilst there are no guarantees, Warnock is the best guy to do this.