Sir Clive Woodward

[Ziggy]

I'm attending a conference in December and just had the programme through. The closing address is by a certain Sir Clive Woodward, and the following refers to his time at the Saints:

 

Later that summer, Sir Clive entered the world of football, joining Southampton FC as Technical Director. Less than six months into his new role, he was promoted to the position of Director of football, a position he held until September 2006, when he accepted the newly created and tremendously exciting full time position with the British Olympic Association.

 

Sounds very grand and successful doesn't it? I'll try and have a word with him and ask for his autograph ......

[Mowgli]

Having read SCW's autobiography, I have to say that he does have leadership skills that could have been useful to Saints. His desire to step out of his comfort zone and experiement in a totally new environment impressed me (I know - we don't want people to 'experiment' with our club, but if we do not try new things we will surely slide backward).

 

In the final analysis, his decision to about turn and try yet another 'new environment' in the BOA suggests his commitment was a tad superficial.

 

What we need is people who are committed in the long term and not ones who will jump ship at the first sign of trouble or the first sign of a better offer.

[um pahars]

Having read SCW's autobiography, I have to say that he does have leadership skills that could have been useful to Saints. His desire to step out of his comfort zone and experiement in a totally new environment impressed me (I know - we don't want people to 'experiment' with our club, but if we do not try new things we will surely slide backward).

 

In the final analysis, his decision to about turn and try yet another 'new environment' in the BOA suggests his commitment was a tad superficial.

 

What we need is people who are committed in the long term and not ones who will jump ship at the first sign of trouble or the first sign of a better offer.

 

I agree for your first bit in that I had no problem with the idea of bringing SCW in, my issue was more to do with the execution, timing and existing personnel at the Club. For me he was potentially right man, but definitely the wrong time.

 

But I'm not sure we can accuse him of jumping ship as IMHO as soon as Crouch/Wilde came in, then his days were numbered. Crouch was particularly vocal about SCW at that time and Wilde's gang weren't overly welcoming either. I think he jumped before he was pushed.

[VectisSaint]

I still believe SCW could have brought a lot to Saints, but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was never going to work with Arry or Bertie who were too set in their ways to look at new things. The only serious mistake he made was getting involved with Mr Gosforth Town, who was basically a chump.

[Alain Perrin]

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better. Some of the innovations he introduced into the England rugby team would have translated into Southampton/Football in general.

 

Although I would have liked it to work and appreciated the experiment, I do agree with Um Pahars. Right man, right ideas, wrong time - it was the kind of experiment that could be afforded inside a stable Premiership team, certainly not in the Championship.

[Wildgoose]

I agree for your first bit in that I had no problem with the idea of bringing SCW in, my issue was more to do with the execution, timing and existing personnel at the Club. For me he was potentially right man, but definitely the wrong time.

 

But I'm not sure we can accuse him of jumping ship as IMHO as soon as Crouch/Wilde came in, then his days were numbered. Crouch was particularly vocal about SCW at that time and Wilde's gang weren't overly welcoming either. I think he jumped before he was pushed.

 

Almost exactly what I was about to say re the right man at the wrong time. I think he could have been excellent (and pioneering) for us and football as a whole, at the right time with different personnel and a different Chairman! RL may have had the foresight to see his potential but lacked the right leadership and personal skills to make it work........to say the least!

[70's Mike]

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better. Some of the innovations he introduced into the England rugby team would have translated into Southampton/Football in general.

 

Although I would have liked it to work and appreciated the experiment, I do agree with Um Pahars. Right man, right ideas, wrong time - it was the kind of experiment that could be afforded inside a stable Premiership team, certainly not in the Championship.

 

agreed,

poor business decision to employ him as a CCC side without the premiership riches

[aintforever]

I saw no evidence that Woodward could contribute anything at all, he was a complete and spectacular failure.

 

"Later that summer, Sir Clive entered the world of football, joining Southampton FC as Technical Director. Less than six months into his new role, he was promoted to the position of Director of football, a position he held until September 2006, when he accepted the newly created and tremendously exciting full time position with the British Olympic Association."

 

The above illustrates perfectly the Woodward brand of bull****, which many, unfortunately lap up.

[John B]

I saw no evidence that Woodward could contribute anything at all, he was a complete and spectacular failure.

 

"Later that summer, Sir Clive entered the world of football, joining Southampton FC as Technical Director. Less than six months into his new role, he was promoted to the position of Director of football, a position he held until September 2006, when he accepted the newly created and tremendously exciting full time position with the British Olympic Association."

 

The above illustrates perfectly the Woodward brand of bull****, which many, unfortunately lap up.

 

SCW the most successful English Manager in the last forty years

[70's Mike]

SCW the most successful English Manager in the last forty years

 

not convinced, a world cup in a sport played by 9 countries , earns him that title

 

Brian Clough for me

[aintforever]

SCW the most successful English Manager in the last forty years

 

Apart from being ******, that's irrelivant as it's in a completely different sport.

[John B]

Apart from being ******, that's irrelivant as it's in a completely different sport.

 

A particularly irrelevant comment I would have thought

[John B]

not convinced, a world cup in a sport played by 9 countries , earns him that title

 

Brian Clough for me

 

If given the chance to manage England I would probably agree

[70's Mike]

If given the chance to manage England I would probably agree

 

you said most successful english manager, no mention of national sides.

 

SCW suffered because Rupert made his appointments high profile rather than a behind the scenes role

[aintforever]

A particularly irrelevant comment I would have thought

 

What exactly did Woodward do whilst he was at Saints that improved the team?

 

What exactly did he do that proves that a good rugby coach can easily be turned into a good football coach?

[Seaford Saint]

Never been convinced, should not have come here - the world cup? the turn of a friendly card IMHO

[Draino76]

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better.

 

11 players at currently 60% improved by 1% would be 11(1.01 x 6) = a total team score of

66.66%.

 

1 player at 60% improved by 11% would get to 66%. Player 66% + (the remaining 10 at 60%) = a total team score of 66.66% also.

 

I would hope the coach concentrates on just one single player so we can have a hero to worship next season; the teams results should be the same either way according to my painstakingly thought out model.

 

Preferably a player we can make a catchy song up for.

[Boris Karloff]

I've met SCW oin several occasions as he used to do some training where I worked. I'm not in any way surprised that he found it difficult to fit in in football.

[Doctoroncall]

11 players at currently 60% improved by 1% would be 11(1.01 x 6) = a total team score of

66.66%.

 

1 player at 60% improved by 11% would get to 66%. Player 66% + (the remaining 10 at 60%) = a total team score of 66.66% also.

 

I would hope the coach concentrates on just one single player so we can have a hero to worship next season; the teams results should be the same either way according to my painstakingly thought out model.

 

Preferably a player we can make a catchy song up for.

 

So the player can then sod off after a season to a bigger team or get's injured.

[CB Fry]

not convinced, a world cup in a sport played by 9 countries , earns him that title

 

Brian Clough for me

 

 

I would suggest the Rugby Union World Cup is just as hard to win as the Football World cup - when you get to Quarters, Semi and Final you are still playing the best in the world.

 

It's just quicker to narrow it down in Rugby.

 

The fact they play football in Andorra, Finland and Honduras doesn't really have much bearing on the world cup semi finals, just a longer process to get to a final four.

[CB Saint]

FWIW I think given time and the right circumstances SCW would have had a positive influence. However, the were two issues. One Harry - he was never going to buy-in in a million years. Secondly, the level of expectation in the Premier League is massive - big results immediately. SCW acheived what he did with the Rugby Team over a number of years. The same squad all working towards a long term goal that was shared by the RFU.

 

It could never happen in football.

[CB Fry]

FWIW I think given time and the right circumstances SCW would have had a positive influence. However, the were two issues. One Harry - he was never going to buy-in in a million years. Secondly, the level of expectation in the Premier League is massive - big results immediately. SCW acheived what he did with the Rugby Team over a number of years. The same squad all working towards a long term goal that was shared by the RFU.

 

It could never happen in football.

 

We weren't in the Prem when SCW turned up, but fair point otherwise.

[CB Saint]

We weren't in the Prem when SCW turned up, but fair point otherwise.

 

Good point. Wine interfering with database retrieval system. But you get my drift..

[gordonToo]

I saw no evidence that Woodward could contribute anything at all, he was a complete and spectacular failure.

 

"Later that summer, Sir Clive entered the world of football, joining Southampton FC as Technical Director. Less than six months into his new role, he was promoted to the position of Director of football, a position he held until September 2006, when he accepted the newly created and tremendously exciting full time position with the British Olympic Association."

 

The above illustrates perfectly the Woodward brand of bull****, which many, unfortunately lap up.

 

SCW is (IMO) one of the biggest phonies of recent times. Promoted to DoF my a*r*s*e. He then spent his time looking for an escape route and the "tremendously exciting position with the BOA" only came about as his preferred route back into rugby was blocked by people that knew him only too well.

[rallyboy]

I was only reading today how many of the 03 players rated his people skills as zero and within the rugby squad he had a cowardly approach to selection - not a good combination unless you are a sporting giant, which he isn't.

Beyond running up huge bills at Staplewood on crackpot ideas and being at the helm of a debacle of a Lions tour, his last great success was gathering the right people around him six years ago.

Olympic-wise I am sure the coaches of the cycling and rowing teams must have welcomed his input on where they were going wrong, or maybe they recognised him as a weirdo chancer who had got lucky, just once.

 

He's just a comic footnote in the soap opera that we became for a while, it's funny now, but it was ludicrous at the time.

[Alain Perrin]

11 players at currently 60% improved by 1% would be 11(1.01 x 6) = a total team score of

66.66%.

 

1 player at 60% improved by 11% would get to 66%. Player 66% + (the remaining 10 at 60%) = a total team score of 66.66% also.

 

Easier, not better. His point being that improving any one player by 11% isn't possible. They're professional sportsman and most of that talent has developed by 18. If you look at the little 1%'s then they're easier and get a collective improvement (ie. stretchy tops in rugby), taking their own chef to avoid food poisoning etc. Absolutely **** all to do with how you kick a ball, and completely translatable between rugby and football.

 

To suggest that we can't learn from other sports is blinkered in my opinion.

[Alain Perrin]

I was only reading today how many of the 03 players rated his people skills as zero and within the rugby squad he had a cowardly approach to selection - not a good combination unless you are a sporting giant, which he isn't.

Beyond running up huge bills at Staplewood on crackpot ideas and being at the helm of a debacle of a Lions tour, his last great success was gathering the right people around him six years ago.

Olympic-wise I am sure the coaches of the cycling and rowing teams must have welcomed his input on where they were going wrong, or maybe they recognised him as a weirdo chancer who had got lucky, just once.

 

He's just a comic footnote in the soap opera that we became for a while, it's funny now, but it was ludicrous at the time.

 

I'm not sure who they were but I think it is unlikely you can be in that situation and not **** some people off because you didn't select them.

 

Part of the problem with Woodward was that he backed the players he knew in the Lions 2004 when others had arguably better form. That time however, it didn't work.

 

Part of his mantra is he doesn't know how to coach, but he knows how to recruit the best coaches/cooks/eye trainers etc.

 

To suggest he 'got lucky, just once' indicates you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Equally to suggest that SCW was the sole reason they won the cup is also false - he did however play his part and professionalised English rugby so that they could compete with the Southern Hemisphere.

[1976_Child]

I still believe SCW could have brought a lot to Saints, but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was never going to work with Arry or Bertie who were too set in their ways to look at new things. The only serious mistake he made was getting involved with Mr Gosforth Town, who was basically a chump.

 

get out. spherical ball V egg-shaped ball.

 

It was a daft idea.

[charlie saint]

Easier, not better. His point being that improving any one player by 11% isn't possible. They're professional sportsman and most of that talent has developed by 18. If you look at the little 1%'s then they're easier and get a collective improvement (ie. stretchy tops in rugby), taking their own chef to avoid food poisoning etc. Absolutely **** all to do with how you kick a ball, and completely translatable between rugby and football.

 

To suggest that we can't learn from other sports is blinkered in my opinion.

 

That reminds me of the kind of stuff Gordon Strachan used to come out with - you remember? About us not really having any Great Players, so it was absolutely vital for us to have our Good Players playing at their best, and for our Average Players to have absolute blinders - and at the same time to hope that their Great Players have a bit of an off day (not a verbatim quote, but the gist is there...). It sounds obvious, but that's the name of the game really - to give your players every chance not to f*ck it up on the day.

 

On the other hand... SCW won his most conspicuous success with an International Team, where hopefully, every man was a already Great Player, or at least a Good one. I agree that attempting to add your 11% to one of them would probably prove futile. In a club situation, there is bound to be more potential, and identifying individuals with the capacity for development ought to be your first priority (actually adding that 'value', your second). After that, find your 1% per player by all means.

[rallyboy]

sorry Alain I must have missed the second occasion when he showed everyone what a great leader he was, do enlighten me.

 

 

I agree that we can learn from other sports but not at huge expense and as one of several disastrous experiments that took us to the brink.

Diet, fitness and correct training have always been key since the beginning of time, even though it took British football a few years to embrace that.

Teams have worked with sprint coaches, even used ballet to improve balance, shrewd football coaches have always looked for an edge, this was not new stuff and he wasn't the messiah.

 

Woodward wasn't a rocket scientist introducing football to revolutionary practice, he was offering expensive left-field experimental ideas that didn't earn Southampton a single point, and this sporting lab work was financed by us.

 

And with the other failed jobs and his rugby legacy with England and the Lions, sadly his great achievement in 2003 now looks like a small oasis of good fortune and timing, in a vast desert of mediocrity.

[up and away]

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better. Some of the innovations he introduced into the England rugby team would have translated into Southampton/Football in general.

 

Although I would have liked it to work and appreciated the experiment, I do agree with Um Pahars. Right man, right ideas, wrong time - it was the kind of experiment that could be afforded inside a stable Premiership team, certainly not in the Championship.

 

If you had the money, I think it would have been a great move. I know at the time of agreeing for him to come here we did have the money and were in the Premier, as soon as we were in the CCC every attempt should have been made of unburdening ourselves of this cost.

 

Simon Clifford could have been a big boost but absolutely no value for the players beyond 14 or over. In fact I would put 90% of his possible success with players younger than 10. Did not need Clifford, but someone committed to his methods for kids.

[Alain Perrin]

sorry Alain I must have missed the second occasion when he showed everyone what a great leader he was, do enlighten me.

 

 

I agree that we can learn from other sports but not at huge expense and as one of several disastrous experiments that took us to the brink.

Diet, fitness and correct training have always been key since the beginning of time, even though it took British football a few years to embrace that.

Teams have worked with sprint coaches, even used ballet to improve balance, shrewd football coaches have always looked for an edge, this was not new stuff and he wasn't the messiah.

 

Woodward wasn't a rocket scientist introducing football to revolutionary practice, he was offering expensive left-field experimental ideas that didn't earn Southampton a single point, and this sporting lab work was financed by us.

 

And with the other failed jobs and his rugby legacy with England and the Lions, sadly his great achievement in 2003 now looks like a small oasis of good fortune and timing, in a vast desert of mediocrity.

 

 

I read your last point and wonder how many World Cups you've won and how qualified you are to judge someone's achievements as a "desert of mediocrity"?

 

He played for England multiple times, was successful as a club manager / coach and before that as a successful sales manager. Hardly a desert.

 

I agree with you it was an expensive experiment, ill afforded in the Championship. I do think that innovation is a key to success and just doing what everyone else does isn't going to give you an edge. Innovations need innovators to introduce them and, guess what, sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does you have a Dyson.

 

Don't get me wrong, he's a salesman. I am certain there is some spin and myth in there with the achievement. That said, to dismiss what he achieved as a fluke, luck or not applicable to football is churlish.

 

Legend? No. Useful? Yes. Appropriate for Saints at the time? No.

[Foxstone]

sorry Alain I must have missed the second occasion when he showed everyone what a great leader he was, do enlighten me.

 

 

I agree that we can learn from other sports but not at huge expense and as one of several disastrous experiments that took us to the brink.

Diet, fitness and correct training have always been key since the beginning of time, even though it took British football a few years to embrace that.

Teams have worked with sprint coaches, even used ballet to improve balance, shrewd football coaches have always looked for an edge, this was not new stuff and he wasn't the messiah.

 

Woodward wasn't a rocket scientist introducing football to revolutionary practice, he was offering expensive left-field experimental ideas that didn't earn Southampton a single point, and this sporting lab work was financed by us.

 

And with the other failed jobs and his rugby legacy with England and the Lions, sadly his great achievement in 2003 now looks like a small oasis of good fortune and timing, in a vast desert of mediocrity.

 

Good fortune My Arse !

 

Masterminding the winning of a world cup in an international sport is a monumental achievement for any Head Coach/Manager, and that he did it in the Australians own backyard heightens the achievement even more.

 

I agree with Um Pahars that he was perhaps the right man at the wrong time at Saints and he was always up against it with the usual British Media attitude of hoping that winners fail, but in no way should his achievement in bringing the greatest moment to an English Team Sport since 1966 be de-valued.

That day in the autumn of 2003 ranks amongst my happiest ever !

[saint1977]

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better. Some of the innovations he introduced into the England rugby team would have translated into Southampton/Football in general.

 

Although I would have liked it to work and appreciated the experiment, I do agree with Um Pahars. Right man, right ideas, wrong time - it was the kind of experiment that could be afforded inside a stable Premiership team, certainly not in the Championship.

 

Fair comment. Surprised Bolton didn't bring him on board when Big Sam was there. If he'd come in 03/04, great but not in the CCC, awful timing.

[saint1977]

I read your last point and wonder how many World Cups you've won and how qualified you are to judge someone's achievements as a "desert of mediocrity"?

 

He played for England multiple times, was successful as a club manager / coach and before that as a successful sales manager. Hardly a desert.

 

I agree with you it was an expensive experiment, ill afforded in the Championship. I do think that innovation is a key to success and just doing what everyone else does isn't going to give you an edge. Innovations need innovators to introduce them and, guess what, sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does you have a Dyson.

 

Don't get me wrong, he's a salesman. I am certain there is some spin and myth in there with the achievement. That said, to dismiss what he achieved as a fluke, luck or not applicable to football is churlish.

 

Legend? No. Useful? Yes. Appropriate for Saints at the time? No.

 

Woodward built a brilliant side, albeit one that peaked in the autumn of their careers. It wasn't just the World Cup, wonderful as that was but can people remember that second half display at Landsdowne the previous Six Nations. That was a very good Ireland side that just got steamrollered by one of the greatest English sporting teams ever.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Easier, not better. His point being that improving any one player by 11% isn't possible. They're professional sportsman and most of that talent has developed by 18. If you look at the little 1%'s then they're easier and get a collective improvement (ie. stretchy tops in rugby), taking their own chef to avoid food poisoning etc. Absolutely **** all to do with how you kick a ball, and completely translatable between rugby and football.

 

To suggest that we can't learn from other sports is blinkered in my opinion.

 

You can argue till the cows come home about these % improvement statements. They mean jack sh*t if they aren't translated into real improvement. The real proof of SCW's pudding IS that he saw no problem with appointing Clifford. Vectis thinks that was his only problem. That's like the Titanic's designer saying the 'only' problem with his ship was that it had no watertight bulkheads. He believed his own hype about his ship. It sank.

 

The whole SCW experiment was a disaster for us.

 

Now if I could secure an 11% improvement in one player, I'd start with a goalkeeper. An 8 goal improvement in goal difference from one player would be great. It just shows how pontificating with arbitrary %s is just so much hot air, something puffed-up Woodward has a lot of.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Duncan Fletcher won the ashes in 2005,and is evidently a good man manger. If ML brings him in now behind the scenes, we'd think he'd gone bonkers.

 

The SCW thing was just Lowe showing the football world how clever and visionary he was. With all the money sloshing around in the Premiership, why hasn't any other Club approached SCW or Clifford?

[Alain Perrin]

You can argue till the cows come home about these % improvement statements. They mean jack sh*t if they aren't translated into real improvement.

 

Completely agree. The point is you can't through coaching make someone 11% better. It's not possible or, if it is, it is nature rather than nurture (a late blooming Kevin Phillips or Ian Wright for example). What you can control are the smaller percentage improvements.

 

Eg. Lions tour in SA when some of the players were struck down by food poisoning from a dodgy meal somewhere. Solution = take your own chef. That player that isn't ill turns out to be your winning goal/try scorer the next day. That's a real improvement.

 

The point is, unless you try these things you'll never know if they work or not. The problem was in our financial state we couldn't fund the lab.