A thread on Thomas Tuchel - As described by himself and those who have worked with him.

This should be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with his methods and will hopefully help clear a few misconceptions.

Tuchel on his style of play — Creating a fundamental framework within which all players operate while also giving them the freedom to come up with their own solutions.

Tuchel on youth development — Young players need to face obstacles and come up with solutions to truly develop as players. Not everything should be taught or handed out on a silver platter.

Tuchel on his training methods — Repetition alone is not enough for players to become better. They need to face a series of different challenges and solve the accompanying problems. Thinking for oneself is very important.

Tuchel on managing players — At a club like PSG or Chelsea, you're likely to see some of the most promising attackers on the planet. Instead of remote-controlling them on the pitch, it is better to give them a basic framework followed by freedom.

Tuchel on motivating players — The likes of Neymar, Ousmane Dembele and Mbappe have supernatural talent. The duty of the coach is to challenge and motivate that talent to express itself by creating uniquely challenging circumstances.

Dani Alves (worked under Guardiola, Allegri and numerous other elite managers) on Tuchel — Comparisons to Pep, man-management ability and training methods.

Ilkay Gundogan in 2017 on Tuchel — In terms of training, the quality and detail, he was perhaps the best coach I've ever had.

Worth noting that Gundogan had already worked under Guardiola and Klopp at that point. Hefty praise indeed.
Those who are worried that Tuchel is another circuit-obsessed manager like Conte or Sarri can rest easy, Tuchel is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Whereas Conte/Sarri don't trust their players enough to take their own decisions, Tuchel actively encourages improvisation.
In terms of improving players and tactical thinking, Tuchel is a genius. Like I said yesterday, he is right up there as the sharpest tactical mind of the Abramovich-era with Conte.

He is not stubborn either, he's a tactical chameleon who is ready to do whatever it takes to win.
Where can it go wrong? It is his abrasive personality that poses the biggest threat to his longevity here. Tuchel can start a fight in an empty room, he's that fiery. If he can rein things in and become more diplomatic, things will be a lot more promising.
While he did a great job integrating young players at Mainz and Dortmund, it remains to be seen how much of it was down to him and how much down to club policies.

It's better to give him some time and form our judgement based on what we see.
Also, there is no point predicting Tuchel's starting XI. He is not wedded to one system or formation and loves to switch things about. We could play a 3-4-3 one game, a 4-3-3 the next game followed by a 4-2-3-1. Again, wait and watch before jumping to conclusions.
Also, he needs to become better socially. At the heart of everything, football clubs are social beasts. The manager needs to connect with the fans as much as players. This is an aspect he was caught lacking at Dortmund, he needs to engage himself more with the fans.
Finally, he needs to become better politically. Sometimes, it's better to be diplomatic and accept defeat than fight your corner. This might be tough for someone as combative as Tuchel but it is something he needs to learn or things will go downhill fast.
There are plenty of highly promising signs as well as red flags with Tuchel. In all likelihood, we will be successful in the first 12-18 months before things start getting problematic.

But you tell me, isn't that every Chelsea manager? Let's enjoy the highs while they last.
That's the end of the thread, for now at least. If I find some more material, I'll update this thread.

I hope this was useful in giving people at least a brief idea of what Tuchel is as a manager - his methods, pros and cons. If you found it helpful, please share. :-)

More from Sport

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x