Steve Clarke: An Obvious Choice
The obvious candidate, and one I promoted in this blog as a potential, stopgap, solution back in November. If we had acted then and offered Clarke the gig I have no doubt that he would have accepted it on an interim basis, and won us the title.
At that point, he’d have been a candidate for getting in on a permanent basis.
But there’s a difference between bringing Clarke in as a stop-gap and giving him the job on a full time basis before he’s had a chance to really prove that he can hack it. Giving Clarke the gig now would not be universally popular; it would be seen as not only a lazy choice but a cheap one.
I think that would be to misunderstand Clarke entirely.
For openers, I don’t think he’s anybody’s yes man and if that was the perception I think it would be quickly challenged and crushed.
I also don’t believe that Clarke would tolerate any interference from the top of the house, or anywhere else. Dissenters wouldn’t get started before they were shipped out.
I think Clarke is well capable of being ruthless.
Clarke is nobody’s fool, and those who have questioned his style of play have, I think, done so from a profound place of misunderstanding as well. He is a brilliant organiser and a canny enough tactician, that I reckon we have no idea at all would Clarke do if he were in charge of an attacking team with the players to make that system work.
What some see as Clarke’s “style” at Killie was, in fact, nothing more than expediency; he was working with a group of players who were limited in many ways and more weeks than not found themselves up against better footballers at bigger clubs.
In short, the style we associate with him – tight, compact, counter attacking, predominantly defensive football – may in fact simply be an adaptation to circumstances … that makes it all the more impressive and makes all the more credible.
I think he has a good shot at it. I think he would bring us success … the question is, is Clarke merely a good manager or a great one never afforded the opportunity to prove it?