By Tim Sigsworth
Over the course of this entire season, concerns about Boro’s performances have continually built up. It seems, after yesterday evening’s dismal 2-1 defeat to Queens Park Rangers, that those concerns have reached their highest point yet – and they aren’t showing any signs of letting up.
As Tony Pulis’ side have slumped from one disappointing result to another, questions over his future have been asked at an ever increasing rate and have now, with the club eight points outside the top two, reached a point where they can no longer be ignored. It is therefore necessary to ask whether he is the right man to take Boro forward, something which this article intends to do.
Defeat to Queens Park Rangers yesterday saw Boro extend their winless run to four games and make it just two points gained from a possible twelve during that same four-game period. Such a record, as well as the toxically pessimistic atmosphere which surrounds the club at the moment, gave Boro’s defeat at Loftus Road an air of inevitability, an air of “typical Boro” which reflects the faith (or lack of) fans have in Pulis at the moment.
You can look for the positives and see that Boro have only lost four games this season, remain in the play-offs and have conceded the fewest goals in the division.
However, this is a strenuous argument. If you compare Garry Monk’s league record with Pulis’, Boro acquired 10 wins and 35 points in the 23 games they played under the now-Birmingham City manager. In comparison, Pulis’ Boro have won 9 games and 36 points from the 22 games played so far this season.
Essentially, Boro have gained one point and gone a round further in the League Cup after a year and two entire transfer windows under Pulis. That isn’t good enough for any team who want to be taken seriously as promotion contenders.
Moreover, this marginally better points tally has been acquired at a cost. With defensive solidity preferred to attacking freedom, Boro have struggled under Pulis to set the pulses going and excite the fans with their safety-first, unadventurous, lack-of-initiative style of play.
Under Pulis, Boro are frustrating to watch, although for entirely different reasons than under Monk (think crass attacking ineptitude versus crass defensive ineptitude). Frankly, Pulis has so far failed to find a balance between exciting football and defensive prowess as Aitor Karanka did so successfully during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons.
Furthermore, Boro have been tactically outsmarted far too often recently. Blown away by Dean Smith’s Aston Villa and outfought and outthought for the majority of the games against QPR, Blackburn Rovers, and Preston North End, Pulis’ tactical mistakes and misjudgements have cost Boro in the past few weeks.
Though blame for Boro’s poor performances can be placed with Pulis, the players available to him also play a part. In key areas, Boro lack what’s necessary; there is little pace and power on the wings, the forwards aren’t clinical enough and there is little to no depth at full-back and on the flanks. This is attributable to Boro’s sub-par summer recruitment, something which is partly the manager’s fault.
Pulis has the final say on transfers and takes the lead on what type of player we sign. Additionally, his pulling power is fairly limited, especially for the dynamic attacking players which the team is crying out for at the minute. Whenever Boro have gone in for a big-name attacking signing during his tenure, they’ve missed out – think Mitrovic, Grabban, Abraham and Bolasie. These players know his style of play, how they’ll likely have very limited attacking freedom and how defensive duties will be substantial under him. It’s therefore no wonder we’re chronically short of attacking options when Pulis is manager of the club.
However, the poor recruitment argument is a two-sided one. At the end of the day, it isn’t Pulis who lacks the funds to appropriately finance a promotion push, it’s Steve Gibson. It isn’t Pulis who makes Teesside and the surrounding area an unattractive prospect for players to move to in comparison to other areas of the country, and it isn’t Pulis who is responsible for the plethora of poor signings made over the last two or three seasons – many of which remain at the club.
Boro’s scouting and recruitment systems have not been good enough for a long time now. Think Dwight Tiendalli, Kike Sola, Bernardo Espinosa and Adlene Guedioura under Aitor Karanka and Marvin Johnson and Connor Roberts under Garry Monk (the list could go on). This is something which Pulis is looking to improve. Ahead of the QPR match he spoke of adopting a buy-low, sell-high policy imitative of Brentford and Norwich City, a statement which reveals two important factors which must be considered in any assessment of Pulis’ future.
Firstly, such an approach is further evidence of the long-term nature of his appointment and the mandate for change which Pulis has been granted by Steve Gibson and the Middlesbrough board. With changes already made regarding the relationships between the first-team and the medical team and academy respectively, Pulis appears to have the confidence of the board and therefore sacking him before he has the opportunity to reap what he has sowed likely doesn’t align with the club’s vision for the future.
However, the fact that Pulis has begun a process of change doesn’t mean that another manager wouldn’t be able to come in and finish it. In that regard, another appointment would be possible and could be effective, but it’s unlikely given Gibson’s confidence in Pulis and trademark loyalty to his managers.
Secondly, it is further evidence, if any was needed, of the club’s financial insecurity. After burning through the Premier League money in the summer of 2017 (£7m for Ashley Fletcher, anyone?), this summer’s transfer policy was one of ‘sell-to-buy’ and there wasn’t much action on the transfer front, with the exclusion of Aden Flint and Paddy McNair, until the sales of Ben Gibson and Adama Traore. When Boro did manage to raise the capital required to make signings, the price tags of certain players, such as Mo Besic and Jed Wallace, were too excessive for permanent deals to be negotiated. With the club now targeting players for £200k, £300k or £1m (as Pulis said in his pre-QPR presser), it is clear for all to see that Boro’s coffers aren’t particularly strong and the club is looking to minimise its costs.
So, with a long-term, low-cost approach favoured, it’s unlikely that Steve Gibson will see fit to sack Pulis. especially as he seems to have a strong relationship with the Boro boss. If you consider that the Welshman is likely on high wages, paying him off, as well as financing the subsequent recruitment process for a new manager, would likely incur costs which the club wouldn’t want to face given its current financial state.
In assessing Pulis’ future, you must also look from the perspective of a potential replacement. With Pulis’ long-term changes interrupted before they provide their intended dividends, a new manager would have the same limited squad and the same limited opportunities to change the squad as Pulis. It would hardly be an attractive prospect in that sense.
Furthermore, the new manager would be the fifth to manage Boro in the last two years, a statistic which would undeniably cast Steve Gibson’s reputation as a patient, old-school-style chairman into doubt. If there is to be little money available to managers of the club for the next few years, Gibson will have to rely on his well-renowned status within the game in order to make strong managerial appointments, something which sacking another manager would do harm to.
Although this reason may smack of self-interest, having a strong manager at the helm will play a key role in the performances of the club over the long-term and limit the negative effects of Boro’s uneasy financial situation.
However, appointing a new manager with a more positive, attacking style of play would have its benefits. Though you may argue that Boro’s current squad is weak and unsuited to an attacking style of play, there is undoubtedly technical skill in the squad which could be weaponised to devastating effect in a progressive, open-minded, attacking style of football.
George Saville and Lewis Wing would likely prosper with freedom to roam in midfield, as they did in the 2017/18 season with Millwall and at the start of this season with Boro respectively, whilst Marcus Tavernier and Martin Braithwaite could perform very well indeed if they were also allowed to play with freedom and the confidence which comes with it.
Moreover, a new manager would also be without Pulis’ defensive reputation, and therefore signing the attacking players the team need as well as retaining those already within the squad would be a much easier task. They may not be able to bring about immediate change given the nature of the squad and of Boro’s finances but having a transfer window to begin to mould their squad and starting to play less archaically rigid football would be hugely beneficial in terms of attendances, atmosphere and the strength of the squad.
Tony Pulis’ football has been dire, and it just isn’t fun to watch Boro anymore – it’s a chore. Change is needed, and whether that comes through Pulis or a new manager, Steve Gibson needs to act. After several years of mismanagement, failure and broken promises, Boro’s chairman is relying on his reputation on an ever greater scale as calls for his head begin to emerge from the shadows.
As such, the decision over Pulis’ future is huge. Get it wrong, and Boro will spend another three to four years in the Championship wilderness, scrimping and saving as memories of the club’s golden era drift further and further away. In such circumstances, defending Gibson would become an increasingly difficult task.
There is a viable argument for Pulis to leave the club now. Boro’s performances are poor, our tactics are ineffective, recruitment has been sub-par, attendances are sliding and the team have minimally increased their points tally in comparison with last season. After a year and two transfer windows, a man of Pulis’ experience should be doing far better than that.
Though it is not entirely his fault and other factors external to him should be considered in any assessment of his performance, much of the discontent felt by the fans towards the manager and the club at the moment could be minimised and possibly even entirely reverted if a positive, attack-minded manager was brought in. Attacking player development would also come on leaps and bounds, too.
However, despite the grievances many feel towards Pulis, I believe it is unlikely that Steve Gibson will part ways with him. Pulis was appointed with a long-term view in mind, he was given a mandate for significant change and the two individuals clearly have a strong relationship. He has made changes behind the scenes and has spent very little money, two factors which will shine him in a favourable light in the board’s mind. With these signs of efficiency added to his reputation as a long-term manager, Pulis is probably seen as the right man to take Boro forward into their cash-strapped future by the Hurworth Hierarchy.
Nevertheless, you cannot avoid the fact that Boro’s results, performances and attendances have only worsened over the course of the season. Though the time may not be right for change in Gibson’s mind, he must act if improvements aren’t seen in those regards soon. He’d have my full support if he was to fire Pulis now, and he’ll have it if he chooses to do so later on. After all, I’d rather watch entertaining football in an atmosphere of hope for the future than the dull and decrepit Pulisball which is unlikely to get us anywhere that’s worth being by the end of the season.
However, any change of management must come with further change behind the scenes. Boro’s issues run deeper than the dugout, and though this doesn’t relieve Pulis of blame, a decision to remove him from his position must be met with a simultaneous reassessment of the entire club’s operations. Even at the very top.
