Steve Clark

Daniel Farke - Player Management One thing I’d genuinely like to understand about Daniel Farke is his handling of certain players during his time at Leeds. There seems to be a recurring pattern of players falling out of favour,being underutilised or struggling to earn his trust. • Charlie Cresswell 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 - fell out of favour following a breakdown in trust • Wilfried Gnonto 🇮🇹 - underutilised and struggled to get consistent minutes • Joe Gelhardt 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 - consistently overlooked and never really given the opportunity to establish himself • Isaac Schmidt 🇨🇭- barley given a chance to prove himself • Largie Ramazani 🇧🇪 - underutilised despite showing promise, with also be criticised publicly • Facundo Buonanotte 🇦🇷 - never really given a proper opportunity to demonstrate his ability • Jean-Mattéo Bahoya 🇫🇷 - similar situation to Buonanotte, with extremely limited opportunities and recent public criticism • Djed Spence 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 - breakdown in trust that ultimately resulted in his loan being terminated • Patrick Bamford 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 - publicly informed he was no longer part of the managers plan • Mateo Joseph 🇪🇸 - inconsistent opportunities followed by a breakdown in relationship • Ao Tanaka 🇯🇵 - endured an extended spell out of favour, alongside some questionable public criticism And there are arguably more examples. I’m not suggesting Farke was necessarily wrong in every situation. Every player and circumstance is different, and some decisions will have been completely justified. But when similar situations keep occurring with different players, I think it’s fair to question whether there’s a wider pattern in his man management. Is Farke too rigid in his expectations? Does he place too much importance on certain characteristics? Is he too reluctant to trust players who don’t immediately fit his preferred mould? Or are these simply individual cases where his decisions have been justified? My personal opinion is that Farke absolutely has his favourites, and once he’s settled on a preferred player for a particular position, he becomes incredibly reluctant to give anybody else a genuine opportunity to challenge them. It often feels as though certain players have to do considerably more than others to earn his trust, whilst those already established in his preferred 11 are affordable far greater patience and considerably more opportunities to play through poor performances. What frustrates me most, though, is the apparent inconsistency in the standards he sets. We’ve repeatedly heard Farke discuss the importance of physicality,defensive responsibility, tactical discipline, work rate and winning individual duels when explaining why certain players aren’t getting opportunities. Those are perfectly reasonable demands from a manager, and I completely understand wanting players who fit your tactical philosophy. But if those attributes are genuinely non-negotiable, surely those standards should apply consistently to everybody? Take Brendan Aaronson for example. I’m not saying suggesting he doesn’t work hard or contribute defensively, because he clearly does. However there are aspects of his game, particularly his physicality,decision making and effectiveness in duels that can be questioned. Yet he appears to have a level of trust and security in the team that other players simply don’t receive. It creates the impression that some players are judged on what they do well, while others are judged primarily on what they don’t do well. And for me, is the biggest issue. I also think Farke can be far too reluctant to experiment. There are occasions when we’re crying out for something different, whether that’s creativity, pace,unpredictability or simply a fresh approach, yet he continues to rely on the same individuals. How is a player supposed to demonstrate that he deserves more opportunities when he’s barely given enough minutes to make an impression?