Leeds United manager Marcelo Bielsa fielded questions from journalists for the first time in over two weeks on Monday morning, discussing the various injuries, recoveries and transfer situations concerning his Whites players.
The Argentine answered various questions for roughly sixty minutes on a variety of topics, including the January transfer window, defeat to Newcastle last time out, as well as providing a status report on the injury situation at Thorp Arch.
Here is every word the 66-year-old had to say.
Thoughts on the transfer window as a whole? Crucial star players didn't leave? Encouraged by the club's stance that nobody was for sale?
It's very valuable we were able to keep the players that are wanted by other teams. That in itself has importance. With respect to no signings coming in, the possibility to improve the squad wasn't there. The club made the necessary efforts and they also showed a willingness to contribute. A willingness to invest more money. So as a result I can only value everything that has been done.
How beneficial has the break been between games? How's the injury situation looking?
Cooper and Phillips are in the final stages of their recovery from their operations. Firpo is in the final stage of his recovery. He will be available next weekend or the following one. Bamford hasn't improved. He continues with the problems at the bottom of his foot and he hasn't started jogging. So his situation continues the same way.
Steven Gerrard is new to Premier League management, what are you expecting from his Villa side?
In Scotland, he had a brilliant step and what he has managed thus far at Aston Villa has been good because he's been able to put his stamp on things very quickly.
With Patrick Bamford out for a little while, is the idea to persist with Dan James and adapt him into the role or give the chance to a more natural striker like Joe Gelhardt?
We managed to score six goals in the games before Newcastle. In the game against Newcastle we didn't manage to score. THe player who played the least was Gelhardt and the ones who had minutes in the centre-forward position have been James, Rodrigo and Tyler. Evidently in the last game what we were missing was the finishing off of chances. The problem existed and what's been demanded is what I've done the least. After I opted for Tyler Roberts and Rodrigo Moreno, and after I opted for Tyler Roberts, Joe Gelhardt and Rodrigo Moreno. So the moment in which we created least danger was when we played with three central attackers through the middle part of our game. What's been demanded from my point of view - and the demand is totally justified - that we didn't win in such an important game, that it was accessible. As every demand has to be argued, the view is put on Gelhardt which is an option that I used for the least amount of time. Obviously I have a lot of arguments. The 15 days prior to the game against Newcastle, Gelhardt had an injury in his ankle and the day prior to the game against Newcastle something that is not at all frequent, I organised a small football training session to verify that after 15 days without football activity, whether he could participate in the game the following day.
That's something that made me think the Gelhardt situation had to be managed carefully. But the reason why he was the last one to come on, is because of what I consider the four options I have available: [Dan] James, Tyler Roberts and Rodrigo Moreno, in that moment I positioned those three in front of his presence. James in his national team plays centre-forward with another player alongside him. Rodrigo and Tyler are original centre-forwards, I insist that was the decision I took most [time] to make, of Gelhardt coming on. The decisions that you make, you are able to verify them, but the ones that are not made, they are always hypothetical. What I did, the decision I made, it is judged. And it's judged negatively because I didn't get what was necessary. The decision I didn't make, that of Gelhardt coming on, can't be verified so the demand comes from this, without considering arguments like the ones I've just mentioned. After the first half the way the team played, of course nothing had to be modified. You don't modify a team that plays well. At the start of the second half, even if we got less chances we still dominated and got forward. And when the chance creation lowered, I took a decision for Tyler to come on, like I said to attack down the centre with Tyler and Rodrigo. And finally after their goal I decided to play with three centre-forwards on the pitch and I insist that's the moment we created the least danger. And it's logical that they claim or demand something. They are claiming something because I didn't do it. And because what I didn't do can't be verified, the critic acquires value.
How important is it the club makes every effort to sign Phillips and Raphinha to new deals?
I described it as important that the club is able to keep their best players. And that doesn't deserve more [attention] than I've just given it. The equilibrium of the economy of a club is a part of its needs to be established for the future health of the club. And for the club not selling such important players, trying to make an investment of £20 million obviously emits a signal. And also when you judge the options of a team, incorporating players, in the winter transfer window, it's also very useful to see what conditions the players are in, the operations coming into the club: who they bought, how much they spent, how much other players are worth incorporating, how much they cost. The players who arrive on loan, in what conditions do they arrive, the signings if they need immediate success, if they are for right now or if they are to incorporate into the team for the future. To give an example, if the club had to replace Bamford, what amount should they invest? A winger costs £30-40 million, how much does a centre-forward that scores goals cost?
Even if we suffer a lot of absences, some significant ones, most significant ones have been Bamford or Koch who have been absent for around 15 games. The absence of Phillips was resolved by Koch, Pascal and Forshaw. The absence of Bamford; [resolved by] Rodrigo, Tyler and James. All of this analysis would have a different outlook if we'd won the game against Newcastle. And it's good that so much importance was given to the game against Newcastle because it was a fundamental game. We know that being demanding, being ambitious and not being satisfied with what we have is fundamental. We also understand that sometimes the patience runs out. The game against Newcastle generated a lot of disappointment in everybody and you can't demand patience but I have the obligation to answer to those demands you've said about the errors.
Shackleton and Cresswell - are they now fit?
Shackleton, Forshaw and Cresswell are all healthy now. The four players that we still don't count on are Firpo, who should be available for this weekend, or probably, because his injury involved his tendon, we may be cautious with his return. Phillips and Cooper who by the beginning of March should be fully recovered. And Bamford who has an injury which we can't predict when he will return because it depends on the pain going away so he can start jogging again and since the injury started, the pain hasn't gone away. Of course, he's going through the necessary treatments for the injury he has.
What have you made of Philippe Coutinho's return to the Premier League when many thought his best days were behind him?
He's a player with prestige and his past speaks for itself. To play in a Premier League team like Aston Villa who is a team in growth, and he's back in the Brazilian international team.
There always seems to be an edge in Villa-Leeds games. Think that has a lot to do with the game in 2019 where Marcelo allowed them to walk the ball into the net? Would you still do the same today under the same circumstances?
In that moment I did what I thought corresponded.
Would you do it again, though?
I always try to do what corresponds. I don't know what the objective of the question is because I answered that I always do what I think always corresponds, so if you're asking if there was an identical situation, because the question isn't going anywhere I doubt in responding, but yes I would do exactly the same.
Are you concerned with the recovery of Patrick Bamford - the length of time?
He hasn't played for 15 games now - how can I not worry?
Hamstring injuries appear to be on the rise across the Premier League - why do you think that is? Does that worry you for the rest of the season?
As I'm used to it, not using arguments to justify the adverse moments. I'll give you an example, I never want to appear demanding or diverting aspects that I don't have to manage the reasons for the defeat, so in the last game you see that I criticised what the opponent did to reduce the playing time. I didn't make any criticism, I only said that the problem existed and that there's resources to resolve it and I'm not the one in charge of that, so in the face of that problem in particular, the media has a position that they've already taken up. Trying to manage the one that lost demands due to the situation and if you were to do it, the next step is that you justify with things outside your responsibility. What you don't do is to position the problem in its real dimension. What I said was that, the time that was consumed not to play the game, was what motivated the question. You see that in the games there's added time, prior to the 45th minute, we include the changes the substitutions, in the last game against Newcastle apart from those minutes, prior to those justified for substitutions, injuries or significant things, that between 16-18 minutes played less but nine in each half. And not within what's added usually, after in added time. Did we lose the game because of that? Of course not. I'm not claiming that in no such way, we lost the game because we dominated the game but couldn't finish it off. And that's the only thing that's within my responsibility and the only thing that I look at. Now if you ask me if time was consumed so that the game wouldn't played, the one who asked the question is able to manage the data and see what happens. So in this case I tell you the data, because the problem existed, but it's not an explanation or a justification of the defeat.
Was it ever a possibility that Crysencio Summerville might go out on loan in January - did he want to?
He spoke with me and he told me he wanted to leave [on loan] and I told him there wasn't any problems with him leaving. The reason why I said this to him, that is a player who has a pretty frequent participation with the first-team, not necessarily coming on but a player who was contemplated frequently, and he asked me, or told me that he wants to leave. For me, that motive is sufficient. For any player that tells me that they want to leave, I would answer: 'no problem, I'm not opposed to you leaving'. What is the reason that it's because he wants to leave, I don't analyse whether it's fair or not, whether it corresponds or not. Simply not wanting to be here is sufficient, now that's a sporting decision. After the club has a different outlook on it, because the players sign contracts and they acquire obligations and the obligations sum up to economic and I don't have the power to decide contractual or economic problems. And in the case of Summerville, there were ten players in a similar situation. All of the subjects I treated them in the same way because it can't be in any other way. When a player signs a contract he is saying he wants to belong and I think it's absolutely legitimate that he doesn't want to belong anymore. It's a possibility and it's right that it's that way but I have a limit in the power of my decisions so all of the players that are within the club know that if they want to leave I'm not going to stand in the way. But because I don't stand in the way, that doesn't mean only I decide. I only have part of the decision.
Ten players in a similar situation to Crysencio - can you explain what you meant by that please?
Everything that I had to say, I already said it. You ask me about the case of Summerville of which I don't know how the information was obtained. I have no other option but to answer on that particular case based on the information you guys have. No way am I going to make public the cases that haven't been made public. In the case of Summerville, in no way did I make that public. I don't know who makes these things public and with what intention they do it. What I do know is what I have to resolve: you ask me if Summerville had offers to leave, which you already know whether he had offers and who he had offers from - and all I can do is answer what I had to resolve. What I do know, is that if he didn't leave, it's not that I forced the club to keep him in. I clearly said to him if he wanted to leave, the best thing for you to do is to leave.
And I say that to any player - be very careful with how you interpret what I say because it's the most natural thing in the world and a person wants to evolve, they consider that the place where they are is not going to allow them to evolve like they would in another place, and they've found a problem. That happens in all situations of labour, constantly, and there's nothing wrong with it. Nor the desire of someone not continuing, nor my position, where if you don't want to be here then what sense does it make to stay. And of course with all of this being made public, it's not good for anybody, not for me, not for Summerville, not for Leeds, but you have to see and understand the footballing world to know who made it public and what are they looking for when they make this public. I'm not accusing anybody or demanding any behaviour, that was wrong, what I'm saying happens at every club constantly. And as it's made public I have the responsibility to tell the truth. What I can't do is answer you is who the other ten are, because the last thing I want is for this to be commented on.
Do you feel you're finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel with regards to the injury crisis that has dominated the season?
When Ayling wasn't here, Dallas played. When Llorente wasn't here, Ayling played. When Cooper wasn't here, Pascal played. When Junior [Firpo] wasn't here, Dallas or Hjelde played. When Klich wasn't here, Forshaw played. When Phillips wasn't here, Koch, Pascal or Forshaw played. When Klich wasn't here, Rodrigo played. Raphinha, James and Harrison haven't been out, and when Bamford hasn't been here, Rodrigo, James or Tyler have played. Gelhardt and Hjelde have been the youngsters with consistent minutes and Shackleton has also been an option. Of course I would have hoped that we didn't have the problems that we have [with injuries] but the team also found the solutions. So, of course the results are poor, [and] because the results are poor everything is made bigger and with respect to the injuries, any analysis that is made, I don't want to have an opinion because when you're going through a sporting moment which is negative, everything you say is read as an excuse.
Because this circle is very clear, every time there is more games, to earn more money. The excuse to earn more money is that we need a lot of money to pay the players because they want to earn more each time or the coaches/managers want to earn more each time. That is not the reason, of course everyone wants to earn more but this was a way to limit the veracity the way to earn more. Every time there's more games, the way the scheduling is completely deformed because it's impossible to schedule within that scenario. And of course the pandemic has multiplied the effects of this problem, but there's only one solution that hasn't been attempted - that we all earn less as a product of the situation, to earn less, to play less, to make it clear how it is that we're going to play less to earn less. Obviously the competition is being denaturalised, there's more injuries and all these situations but never the reasons of the problems and why they're generated, nor the solutions. How is it possible that the scheduling puts competitions in the same place, of course they're going to have to reschedule and between all the federations; FIFA, UEFA, it's impossible for it not to be overboard. Now I also want to say something: our injuries have not been due to an excess of games.
Ayling injured his knee and was missing 8 games, Pascal his foot 6 games missing, Bamford his ankle and foot 14 games, Koch's hip 16 games, Rodrigo Moreno his foot 5 games. Phillips, Cooper and Shackleton have had problems with the tendons; the muscular problems we have had have been really few - Llorente and Firpo and Bamford within those injuries that he had with that hamstring injury, so we've had three muscular injuries, but obviously the problems you're making reference to in that moment, there is an infinite amount of data that has to do with the fact the rest and recovery is not sufficient and is produced due to an excess of games. An excess of games should be treated as well, with regards to the teams that are able to have two teams and those who are able to only have one, which is not our case, because we don't have a problem with the excess of games, the one who has a problem with this problem in general is football. All of these things that I've said in this conference is nothing that justifies the bad moment that Leeds is going through. That is a product of something I should have managed better.
