Leeds vs Brighton Match Thread

[Johnthewhite]

You mean like The Godfather ?

If required

[Musicman1965]

I think the board know exactly what is needed and he doesn't need to air his thoughts through the media. Farke has done a wonderful job and its obvious that the team need reinforcements to progress. I don't agree on the way he is going about it, do your job and everything else will fall into place. We have seen in the past on how badly press releases by managers can go either way, one opinion is that he is putting pressure on the board to make it known how he feels but it could also turn against him as the 49 ers conduct business internally and not through managers pressuring them through the media. Depends on how they take it I suppose.

[GreennWhite]

I dont think they dictate style of play at all cjay.
I think Paraag is focused on the business and return on investment. He has no real football experience and has given no inidication in any interviews that he believes he has. He knows what assets he has (the manager being a key one), and was clear at end of last season when people (you included) were saying Farke would not be the right manager for us in the PL, that "Farke was his man".

This press conference was Farke saying he has the cards now to set the agenda. He has accomplished all the objectives of "this project" and now new and ambitious goals must be set. If the owners want to tread water for a couple years, he is not their man.

He was clear - you must do more than the previous ownership did for Marcelo, or face the same outcome.
He was not bombastic or arrogant - he was clear and articulate.
I think it was a fantastic statement.
If the owners dont rise to the occasion, then frankly we dont deserve to keep Daniel Farke.
This is an amazing time for our club. I have to hope at this point that our owners will do the right thing and that all this hand wringing from Leeds fans is all uncalled for. I hope Im right.

Well said Farke is only saying what we all thinking, and what needs doing for next season if we are to progress. Its nothing more than that, even if some are trying to make something out of nothing.
All we can do now is wait until pre season gets under way and we start to see how things are unfolding. Once that starts to happen we will see how the club are planning to move ahead and build the club.

[weasel]

An interesting press conference and like has been said probably the right time for Farke to be spelling out his ambition, and what he feels he needs to succeed.

I do feel that there may have been a bit of friction in regard to some of the transfers and I think the biggest example of that would appear to be Perri, who, from the rumours, it would seem was a compromise deal rather than the top target for Farke or the top target by the recruitment team. From the way I understand Farke's personality I could see him being angry about that and also feeling it undermined him.

As such it may be that he wants the ultimate say and for me the final say on first team ready players should be Farke's. The recrutiment team produce the list of players, per position, but Farke then makes the final decision. I think that is the way it should be otherwise you can end up with players that the manager doesn't really want, doesn't really rate - and as we have seen with Farke he does have his favourites, ones he trusts more than others.

I don't see it (the press conference) as being controversial. I think he has proved himself as a premier league manager and I would say that the 'metrics' suggest we could have done even better with clinical finishing etc. As such there is every suggestion that if we improve the team he can improve the league position. We have also seen enough evidence, in the championship, that with a team that is equal or better than the competition he is capable of making them the best (3 titles in 5 seasons).

I think/hope the board share his ambition. We don't have money to waste so getting recruitment right is the key, same as it is with Brighton, Bournemouth, Brighton etc.

[Cjay]

I dont think they dictate style of play at all cjay.
I think Paraag is focused on the business and return on investment. He has no real football experience and has given no inidication in any interviews that he believes he has. He knows what assets he has (the manager being a key one), and was clear at end of last season when people (you included) were saying Farke would not be the right manager for us in the PL, that "Farke was his man".

This press conference was Farke saying he has the cards now to set the agenda. He has accomplished all the objectives of "this project" and now new and ambitious goals must be set. If the owners want to tread water for a couple years, he is not their man.

He was clear - you must do more than the previous ownership did for Marcelo, or face the same outcome.
He was not bombastic or arrogant - he was clear and articulate.
I think it was a fantastic statement.
If the owners dont rise to the occasion, then frankly we dont deserve to keep Daniel Farke.
This is an amazing time for our club. I have to hope at this point that our owners will do the right thing and that all this hand wringing from Leeds fans is all uncalled for. I hope Im right.

They dictate style of play by dictating the profile of player we sign.

It was all in that document Malcolm.

Farke gets the final say but only once the criteria set out by the ownership group and filtered by the data team has found targets.

If you dictate the profile of signings by extension you control the style of play.

As I said it's no different to Brighton.

I'm glad he called out ambition as like you I have no desire for us to make uo the numbers

But it was about more than that.

He specifically mentioned wanting "full control" and "being in charge".

[Cjay]

An interesting press conference and like has been said probably the right time for Farke to be spelling out his ambition, and what he feels he needs to succeed.

I do feel that there may have been a bit of friction in regard to some of the transfers and I think the biggest example of that would appear to be Perri, who, from the rumours, it would seem was a compromise deal rather than the top target for Farke or the top target by the recruitment team. From the way I understand Farke's personality I could see him being angry about that and also feeling it undermined him.

As such it may be that he wants the ultimate say and for me the final say on first team ready players should be Farke's. The recrutiment team produce the list of players, per position, but Farke then makes the final decision. I think that is the way it should be otherwise you can end up with players that the manager doesn't really want, doesn't really rate - and as we have seen with Farke he does have his favourites, ones he trusts more than others.

I don't see it (the press conference) as being controversial. I think he has proved himself as a premier league manager and I would say that the 'metrics' suggest we could have done even better with clinical finishing etc. As such there is every suggestion that if we improve the team he can improve the league position. We have also seen enough evidence, in the championship, that with a team that is equal or better than the competition he is capable of making them the best (3 titles in 5 seasons).

I think/hope the board share his ambition. We don't have money to waste so getting recruitment right is the key, same as it is with Brighton, Bournemouth, Brighton etc.

I don't think it was controversial

Quite brave actually.

He clearly feels rightly he's in a position of strength.

Probably the best he's ever been in in his career.

Will be interesting to see what the owners do.

[weasel]

They dictate style of play by dictating the profile of player we sign.

It was all in that document Malcolm.

Farke gets the final say but only once the criteria set out by the ownership group and filtered by the data team has found targets.

If you dictate the profile of signings by extension you control the style of play.

As I said it's no different to Brighton.

I'm glad he called out ambition as like you I have no desire for us to make uo the numbers

But it was about more than that.

He specifically mentioned wanting "full control" and "being in charge".

I wouldn't say it is that black and white. If you take the example of Bielsa he took a group of players that certainly hadn't been bought to play his way. He got them playing how he wanted them to and made them far better players than any of us probably thought possible.

So whilst we may be buying 6ft plus it wasn't like we were buying players who weren't good with their feet, mobile etc. And I don't think any player bought wouldn't have been able to slot straight into Farke's championship side and the way that side played. I would say they were mulit-faceted but that the height side of things was more about set pieces than actual style of play. The age side of things was likely so there was less risk in terms of we knw what we were getting rather than buying potential that may not be realised.

I think the only player bought that could have had a question mark in terms of suitability to play out from the back would have been Perri - but we have also seen Man City buying a keeper, Donnaruma, who isn't particularly great with his feet.

[weasel]

I don't think it was controversial

Quite brave actually.

He clearly feels rightly he's in a position of strength.

Probably the best he's ever been in in his career.

Will be interesting to see what the owners do.

I would have thought it is a case of carrying on as before but maybe trusting Farke a little bit more in terms of final say in regard to transfers. If they feel he has proved himself worthy of a longer contract then it makes sense to give him the ultimate say in regards to transfers.

[Cjay]

I wouldn't say it is that black and white. If you take the example of Bielsa he took a group of players that certainly hadn't been bought to play his way. He got them playing how he wanted them to and made them far better players than any of us probably thought possible.

So whilst we may be buying 6ft plus it wasn't like we were buying players who weren't good with their feet, mobile etc. And I don't think any player bought wouldn't have been able to slot straight into Farke's championship side and the way that side played. I would say they were mulit-faceted but that the height side of things was more about set pieces than actual style of play. The age side of things was likely so there was less risk in terms of we knw what we were getting rather than buying potential that may not be realised.

I think the only player bought that could have had a question mark in terms of suitability to play out from the back would have been Perri - but we have also seen Man City buying a keeper, Donnaruma, who isn't particularly great with his feet.

I think it's pretty clear based on the results when we stepped away from FarkeBall and the results drastically improve that the player we signed weren't signed with FarkeBall in mind.

They were signed more for a Red Bull style if you like, not a possession based style.

That's the profile we were signing.

It was clear in the amount of ball progression standouts we had, that isn't possession based like DF likes.

So whilst you could still try to it clearly wasn't the strengths.

It's not unusual of course for managers to not control playing style in modern football.

Brighton, Red Bull, City Group, they all control the style of play.

I'd agree the players probably could have played Farke way in the Championship but possession football at the top level is a different level.

You have to sign for it.

We didn't.

I suspect Farke would like to? His whole thing is control, his style of play, his initial dream to be a Sporting Director not a manager, it's all control.

If you read between the lines of what he said he mentioned wanting more control.

[Cjay]

I would have thought it is a case of carrying on as before but maybe trusting Farke a little bit more in terms of final say in regard to transfers. If they feel he has proved himself worthy of a longer contract then it makes sense to give him the ultimate say in regards to transfers.

I don't think he should be given full control tbh, that isn't the modern way anyway.

The all controlling manager.

Maybe a bit more freedom? But also I wouldn't want to see us moving to his style, why? We found something that works that's what's important.

It will ultimately depend on how set the owners are in their ways.

They run Rangers the same way (was reported many managers turned them down for that reason).

If they are really set on this Red Bull/Brighton type model they aren't likely to give in?

I'd hope they can maybe find a middle ground.

[Sean_Nile]

I don't think he should be given full control tbh, that isn't the modern way anyway.

The all controlling manager.

Maybe a bit more freedom? But also I wouldn't want to see us moving to his style, why? We found something that works that's what's important.

It will ultimately depend on how set the owners are in their ways.

They run Rangers the same way (was reported many managers turned them down for that reason).

If they are really set on this Red Bull/Brighton type model they aren't likely to give in?

I'd hope they can maybe find a middle ground.

The modern way of football be damned.

Football has strayed far from the beautiful game's soul, prioritizing hyper-specialization, data-driven sterility, and tactical overcomplication over raw passion, skill, and flowing play... and team spirit.

Endless tiki-taka possession without purpose, reliance on set-piece coaches, and ultra-defensive low blocks have turned matches into chess-like exercises in risk aversion rather than contests of athleticism, creativity, and direct duels.

Players are micro-managed into positional rotations and high-pressing algorithms, while individual flair is sacrificed for "structured patterns." This has produced cautious, often dull spectacles where games are decided by marginal gains, VAR drama, or set-pieces rather than moments of genuine brilliance... and entertainment.

Daniel Farke stands as a refreshing advocate for older, purer principles that emphasize actually playing football. The Leeds United manager has openly dismissed the modern hype around specialist set-piece obsession and parking the bus, instead insisting his teams dominate the ball, press high, and attack on the front foot with clear philosophy and work ethic.

In an age of tactical fads and over-analysis, Farke's approach recalls the old ways: controlling the game through possession and intent, fostering team spirit and hearts-and-souls commitment over fleeting trends.

Returning to these fundamentals, valuing technical mastery, direct attacking intent, and manages with a consistent identity which would restore excitement, reward talent, and make football truly worth watching again.

[Musicman1965]

Tough game against Brighton on Sunday, they will be up for it and we have major injuries to key players.

[weasel]

I think it's pretty clear based on the results when we stepped away from FarkeBall and the results drastically improve that the player we signed weren't signed with FarkeBall in mind.

They were signed more for a Red Bull style if you like, not a possession based style.

That's the profile we were signing.

It was clear in the amount of ball progression standouts we had, that isn't possession based like DF likes.

So whilst you could still try to it clearly wasn't the strengths.

It's not unusual of course for managers to not control playing style in modern football.

Brighton, Red Bull, City Group, they all control the style of play.

I'd agree the players probably could have played Farke way in the Championship but possession football at the top level is a different level.

You have to sign for it.

We didn't.

I suspect Farke would like to? His whole thing is control, his style of play, his initial dream to be a Sporting Director not a manager, it's all control.

If you read between the lines of what he said he mentioned wanting more control.

So what is our playing style that our players were bought for? It seems we are back to this mythical style that we supposedly, this style that has somehow completely gona away from how we used to play..

It simply doesn't exist. We are adapticv. In some games we have more possession, play more ploddy ball. Other games we are front foot, dynamic, or soak up pressure and look to counter. We mix and match and our players are comfortable in whatever way we play. Yes harder to do some things against teams that press better.

It is isn't like we say bought wingers because we were set on playing wide etc. We have bought good players and the only one that it could be argued was bought with a system in mind would be Bijol who has looked better in a 3 man defence - but that may be simply that he has played more often in a 3 prior to coming to us so found it more comfortable though am sure he would have adapted to a centreback pairing.

[weasel]

I don't think he should be given full control tbh, that isn't the modern way anyway.

The all controlling manager.

Maybe a bit more freedom? But also I wouldn't want to see us moving to his style, why? We found something that works that's what's important.

It will ultimately depend on how set the owners are in their ways.

They run Rangers the same way (was reported many managers turned them down for that reason).

If they are really set on this Red Bull/Brighton type model they aren't likely to give in?

I'd hope they can maybe find a middle ground.

I doubt it is a case of much change. Likely the only one being ultimate say on who we try to sign - but would still be based on a list supplied by the recrutiment team. So it is the club buying players that they have identified but Farke choosing the one who he thinks will fit his ethos better, so not just talent but attitude.

Same as with the other clubs you name. They identify players but the manager has to fit them into his way - and whilst the way they play may not change much under different managers it will still change - Potter v DeZerbi at Brighton as an example.

Likely the recruitment team may have final say on younger players, players that aren't gonna be first team ready for a while so it makes more sense that they get on with that.

[Cjay]

So what is our playing style that our players were bought for? It seems we are back to this mythical style that we supposedly, this style that has somehow completely gona away from how we used to play..

It simply doesn't exist. We are adapticv. In some games we have more possession, play more ploddy ball. Other games we are front foot, dynamic, or soak up pressure and look to counter. We mix and match and our players are comfortable in whatever way we play. Yes harder to do some things against teams that press better.

It is isn't like we say bought wingers because we were set on playing wide etc. We have bought good players and the only one that it could be argued was bought with a system in mind would be Bijol who has looked better in a 3 man defence - but that may be simply that he has played more often in a 3 prior to coming to us so found it more comfortable though am sure he would have adapted to a centreback pairing.

Progressive football and physical.

It's the one thing all our signings had in common.

Every signing we made either excelled at passing the ball forward or running it forward data wise.

I don't know how much influence Red Bull have on us but it was heavily leaned to them.

Every single player we signed was suited to a more direct style.

That isn't the DF way, he's spoken about it himself often, possession, control etc.

That wasn't the profile we signed.

And given its widely reported the owners used data and analysis to study what it takes to survive it wouldn't be.

We signed for the exact same counter attacking direct style teams like Brentford and Wolves used.

[Cjay]

I doubt it is a case of much change. Likely the only one being ultimate say on who we try to sign - but would still be based on a list supplied by the recrutiment team. So it is the club buying players that they have identified but Farke choosing the one who he thinks will fit his ethos better, so not just talent but attitude.

Same as with the other clubs you name. They identify players but the manager has to fit them into his way - and whilst the way they play may not change much under different managers it will still change - Potter v DeZerbi at Brighton as an example.

Likely the recruitment team may have final say on younger players, players that aren't gonna be first team ready for a while so it makes more sense that they get on with that.

Based on the document it would need to change as Farke doesn't run the profile of signing we make.

It's all in that document.

He gets the final say on the player but not the profile.

And he spoke about wanting "full control", if he had it I doubt he'd mention it.

If it comes to letting DF run the entire football department like a Sporting Director/Head Coach crossover I'd be surprised if they do that.

In fact I'd be surprised if he could get any top level job that allows that, it's basically never done anymore.

Farke has said before he wants to be a manager not a head coach.

He's a Head Coach here atm.

[weasel]

Progressive football and physical.

It's the one thing all our signings had in common.

Every signing we made either excelled at passing the ball forward or running it forward data wise.

I don't know how much influence Red Bull have on us but it was heavily leaned to them.

Every single player we signed was suited to a more direct style.

That isn't the DF way, he's spoken about it himself often, possession, control etc.

That wasn't the profile we signed.

And given its widely reported the owners used data and analysis to study what it takes to survive it wouldn't be.

We signed for the exact same counter attacking direct style teams like Brentford and Wolves used.

But we don't really play counter attack. We are a sort of hybrid, jack of all trades type of team. The 3 at the back has generally made us concede less, been less vulnerable when the full backs go forward but in the main it is just adapting to the different opposition. Championship, as Farke alluded to, was more about us being the better team and as such playing in a way that would statistically give us a good chance of winning - dominate possession and create more chances than the opposition.

I don't think we can wed ourselves to any single style unless it was the case that we had the best players. Man City can play the Pep way because they bought the best players to fit his way - and like you mentioned they had to adapt when they bought Haaland because he didn't fit their system - but you adapt as he is/was such a clinical finisher.

So looking at players it was progressive players - possible the only one we had prior to that was Rothwell, maybe Rutter in terms of central players. But for me that is a natural progression as if you look at players signed previously they were progresive, Bogle, a ball carrying fullback (before that Gray to do the same thing), Rodon comfortable on the ball, Solomon, good at progressing the ball. As such I don't think it was a huge change in stategy just a case of being able to buy better with having more money. The players bought all comfortable in possession too.

[weasel]

Based on the document it would need to change as Farke doesn't run the profile of signing we make.

It's all in that document.

He gets the final say on the player but not the profile.

And he spoke about wanting "full control", if he had it I doubt he'd mention it.

If it comes to letting DF run the entire football department like a Sporting Director/Head Coach crossover I'd be surprised if they do that.

In fact I'd be surprised if he could get any top level job that allows that, it's basically never done anymore.

Farke has said before he wants to be a manager not a head coach.

He's a Head Coach here atm.

The trouble with not having the manager identifying the profile is that you can then end up with Ramizanni, Perri etc that don't really fit what the manager wants/needs. For me it needs the manager to say what he wants, the transfer team to then identify a list of players that fit that criteria - and - and here is the key part - players that also fit what they want. So you have the venn diagram of players that fit both what Farke wants and also have the attributes that our recruitment team feel is key.
That for me is the perfect way and everyone is happy. What you have to avoid though is the supposed scenario where it appears Perri didn't fit into the venn diagram and possibly wasn't what either group really wanted and as such was a compromise rather than us being able to identify and then actually get someone that did fit properly.

So for me it is common sense- and maybe it is the spending a few million more to secure the right player, that ticks all the boxes, rather than getting someone that doesn't really fit. Or signing another striker in case of injuries etc.

[Cjay]

But we don't really play counter attack. We are a sort of hybrid, jack of all trades type of team. The 3 at the back has generally made us concede less, been less vulnerable when the full backs go forward but in the main it is just adapting to the different opposition. Championship, as Farke alluded to, was more about us being the better team and as such playing in a way that would statistically give us a good chance of winning - dominate possession and create more chances than the opposition.

I don't think we can wed ourselves to any single style unless it was the case that we had the best players. Man City can play the Pep way because they bought the best players to fit his way - and like you mentioned they had to adapt when they bought Haaland because he didn't fit their system - but you adapt as he is/was such a clinical finisher.

So looking at players it was progressive players - possible the only one we had prior to that was Rothwell, maybe Rutter in terms of central players. But for me that is a natural progression as if you look at players signed previously they were progresive, Bogle, a ball carrying fullback (before that Gray to do the same thing), Rodon comfortable on the ball, Solomon, good at progressing the ball. As such I don't think it was a huge change in stategy just a case of being able to buy better with having more money. The players bought all comfortable in possession too.

It's bit counter attack I agree, all be it we do sit back a bit at times.

But it isn't the same style DF uses generally.

He's a possession dictate play build from the back type coach, the Championship was his way.

Until Man City was more his way, after was more a style for the profile we signed for.

Get it forward quickly and fight for second balls and stuff.

The Championship squad was progressive as you say but also very comfortable on the ball and generally more gifted than their opponents.

If that is what DF wants to do going forward then I don't think it would go well.

As you say Pep can do it he has the luxury of player quality

We won't have, it took Brighton 4 seasons I think it was before they made it work and they floated with relegation before that numerous times.

I quite like the more direct style tbf, I don't like possession for the sake of it football (I don't like what Pep has become).

I'd be happy to be flexible but I'd be very concerned if we tried to become a purely possession side.

DF has done well this season with something different, I see no reason to go back to his style which as yet is unproven at best at the top level.

[Cjay]

The trouble with not having the manager identifying the profile is that you can then end up with Ramizanni, Perri etc that don't really fit what the manager wants/needs. For me it needs the manager to say what he wants, the transfer team to then identify a list of players that fit that criteria - and - and here is the key part - players that also fit what they want. So you have the venn diagram of players that fit both what Farke wants and also have the attributes that our recruitment team feel is key.
That for me is the perfect way and everyone is happy. What you have to avoid though is the supposed scenario where it appears Perri didn't fit into the venn diagram and possibly wasn't what either group really wanted and as such was a compromise rather than us being able to identify and then actually get someone that did fit properly.

So for me it is common sense- and maybe it is the spending a few million more to secure the right player, that ticks all the boxes, rather than getting someone that doesn't really fit. Or signing another striker in case of injuries etc.

But if the manager wants a player to fit style X and the data/recruitment team want Y who wins? Getting a player able to do both equally well is likely well above our level financially.

That's where issues arise.

If a manager doesn't align with the style the club wants and the players are signed for then problems occur.

Likewise if the club signs players who don't fit the style the manager wants problems arise.

So somebody has to have the final say on profile.

If the manager dictates the style and thus the signings, would you be comfortable allowing DF to build a squad for his possession based style? With respect it hasn't served him well at the top level before so what if it doesn't work? Your stuck with players signed for a style that hasn't worked and may not be able to adapt to a new manager and new style?

Or what if it does work and Farke leaves mid season for a new job and we can't find a manager willing or able to come in and play the same style?

That's the reason clubs like Brentford operate how they do, it stops situations like that occurring.

I don't think a manager can be allowed full control imo, you never know how a manager will work out or if it goes well and they leave then you lose everything and have to rebuild.

You give them a say (which DF has) but never full control

If the club dictates the criteria its a permanent and probably better long term business wise (which I imagine appeals to our owners).