The Leeds United squad has improved, boosted by investment rather than coaching-driven collective growth. Marsch didn't make it a full year in the role and after the 1-0 loss to Forest, if Bielsa's leadership was seen as sending Leeds downward, Marsch faced even more criticism from the circumstances.
Leeds were on the brink of granting Marsch more leniency than they did their most triumphant manager in three decades. Marsch talked about a winning mindset and attempted to emphasize its importance to the team post-Forest, but the term used by Leeds' top brass after the lackluster second half was 'toothless', resulting from one too many disappointing outcomes.
A source close to an insider at the club discussed with me the frustration from Leeds Majority shareholder Andrea Radrizzani after spending much of his own money on attacking players, and not seeing results against opponents who bunker. After the Brentford and Forest matches, it was enough data for Radrizzani to pull the plug despite the evident backing in the January window.
Marsch's tenure was plagued by subpar results, and as time for introspection arises in the coming days, the question will arise about why Leeds, considering the events of the past 11 months, impulsively chose Marsch after Bielsa's dismissal with 12 games left in last season. It was not a strategic move or even a result of urgency to find a new coach in the middle of the season. If Bielsa had stayed until the end of the season, Marsch was slated to take over anyway. Essentially, that was a done deal.
Leeds presented Marsch as a seamless transition from Bielsa, someone who would preserve some of Bielsa's best work and avoid significant tactical shifts. It sounded promising, but over time, the similarities were hard to discern. Bielsa's football relied on width and prized possession. His team attacked the ball with ferocity and tirelessly pressed to regain control, striving to dominate the game. Leeds covered tremendous ground during each match and were renowned for the intensity of their play.
Marsch's squad could also cover a lot of ground, but while Bielsa's side exuded intensity, Marsch's version felt more abstract. Leeds under him might run, but they often appeared frail. They might emphasize the press, but to what extent and with what outcomes? The label promised full throttle, but in reality, the team could be brittle and vulnerable. Marsch recently spoke about his ruthless playing style, but as a coach, he claimed to have mellowed. Unfortunately, his players were not ruthless enough, to his detriment.
And we can sit here and talk about all of the horrible luck this season, from matches being rescheduled to consistently poor refereeing decisions that led to poor results, or the shockingly poor finishing from otherwise competent forwards. All of that is null and void, as the results never came. And as much as I wanted this to work, as a fan of Leeds and Tyler and Weston and Brenden, I think this is the right decision.
Despite this, the players respected Marsch for keeping the team together during the intense battle for survival. With the public's anger over Bielsa's dismissal and the pressure of a fraught fight against relegation, it took strong leadership to prevent the team from falling apart. Bielsa's success left a lasting impression, and many believed that anyone who followed in his footsteps would struggle to live up to his accomplishments. Initially, some criticism of Marsch was fueled by comparisons to Bielsa, but as the season progressed, most criticism was based on what was seen on the field: a coaching style that wasn't producing results and had landed Leeds in 17th place. Despite positive data, results ultimately overshadowed any optimism. By Sunday, Marsch acknowledged that a result was crucial against Manchester United on Wednesday, with a tone that indicated he had no hope of making it that far.
Leeds will likely aim for what they attempted last year: to appoint a coach who can not only ensure their survival but also drive the team forward beyond this season. The decision is crucial. While they may be faced with another firefighting situation, it's not in their nature to appoint someone solely for that purpose, and in Marsch, they saw so much more potential, evidenced by their commitment to supporting him with recruitment until the end. A bright future was within reach after Marsch's team trounced Chelsea in August, but the excitement was short-lived, giving the team and Jesse a fleeting moment of glory.
Great piece, Jake. It's even-handed and full of context. Considering that the timing of letting Bielsa go was not great, I thought Leeds brass might decide to let Marsch stay on until the end of the season. Because they're letting him go now, that suggests to me that they expect to be relegated.
If they thought they had a chance to stay in the Prem. League, then it would make sense to let Marsch go at the end of the season. It would be easier to find a top manager for a Prem. League club than a Championship one.
On the other hand, if their data say that they're probably getting relegated, then waiting until the end of the season means looking for a manager who definitely knows he's getting a Championship team.
Right now, with the outcome doubtful, they can attract a manager who wants the fight, but who is Prem. League calibre.