AIK Coach Andreas Brännström in Precarious Position: Should He Be Fired?

I never thought this would happen.

But Andreas Brännström has given a mismanaged AIK legitimate, valid reasons to blame the fiasco on him.

There are many of us who are worried about Andreas Brännström’s precarious situation in AIK. The sporting management above him was a joke for a long time. The coach has been assigned players he does not want to use with pliers. The squad lacks something as basic as running strength and has too many scrappy bodies that cannot withstand hard training or matchups.

All of that is true, but it’s also been made clear a long time ago and pretty well torn apart. Because you can also turn it around. Was it not, in fact, a rather favorable situation for Andreas Brännström this spring? From a pure survival perspective? The demands on him from those around him and supporters were unusually low. In principle, everyone was prepared to blame the self-proclaimed universal genius Manuel Lindberg and the board if Gnaget did not become a top team. The pitchforks were ready and they weren’t aimed at the head coach.

Brännström didn’t even have one had to pilot the team to the top half to escape the worst criticism. It would have been enough to have reasonably safe ground, a clear distance down to the qualifying line, positive forward-leaning™ tendencies in the game and something to believe in for the future. Then the coach would have been untouchable. Brännström had only had to succeed extremely little to appear like a genius compared to his bosses. He hasn’t even managed that, which surprised me a lot.

I never thought this would happen, but Brännström has put himself in such a weak position that he has given a grossly mismanaged club legitimate, valid reasons to blame parts of the fiasco on his coach.

Brännström takes pride in being honest. I can respect him for that. AIK’s coach does not pretend. Never sugarcoats his statements to protect the fragile egos of others. Speaks the truth. However, no one can claim that his communication had short-term positive effects this spring. He had needed to win games – actually prove something himself – to ground his uncompromising judgments of the squad and the players. He has a habit of becoming an external, objective assessor or cold analyst when he talks about his AIK. It is as if he is standing outside and commenting on what is happening in the club. I don’t think that’s the purpose, but sometimes it can look like he’s washing his hands in real time. Distances himself from the breakdown. You almost wanted to tap him on the shoulder and remind… “you know you’re the one who coaches this team, right?”.

full screen

AIK players have always had a tendency to become terrified and flighty when seasons go badly enough. Panic is always latent in this association. One can ask whether Brännström – who often raised the stakes with sharp statements – contributed to peace and security? Or has he even created more anxiety in an already vulnerable position?

In purely sporting terms, AIK is characterized by a system error. The theoretically best attacking players – the “stars” – are to a large extent too poor defensively and suffer from a fragile physique. If too many of them play, AIK becomes an unbalanced team that is far too easy to run, press and tackle. The problem is that AIK has become too back-heavy, stocky and blunt when Brännström tried to strengthen with more hard-working but offensively limited players. The balance has oscillated between two extremes and Brännström has not been skilled enough to find a sensible middle ground. Everyone knows he lacks certain types of players and suffers badly from it. The material has certainly proved to be weaker than most (like everyone, honestly) thought before the season, but that does not absolve the coach. The truth is that several functional and historically competent Allsvenskan players have radically lost quality under Brännström. Almost no one has had a positive development. It’s up to the coach. The same coach who earlier in his career took pride in making a lot out of a little – wine out of water – but who now seems to have lost that excellence.

Despite the disastrous results, Brännström is still supported by many supporters and members. Why? Because in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king. The coach has, until the employment of sporting director Thomas Berntsen, appeared as the only credible, leading sporting force in an otherwise mismanaged AIK. I don’t feel that very many people support Brännström because he gave them reason to really believe in himbut because they distrust so many Other within AIK. Like Manuel Lindberg, the obscure technical council, the fallen board and several high-profile players (Jimmy Durmaz and so on). No one is real for Brännström, as much as they are against Other. That fact has also saved the coach’s job this spring.

“So come to the point then”, feels surely someone reading this text. Should Brännström be fired? I personally have a good eye for him, but my firm opinion is that Brännström did his job almost as weak as the managers above him in the hierarchy and the players below him. That means a terribly low rating. Now the coach has the spring to show that he will be allowed to remain as AIK coach when Berntsen rebuilds. In my world, a reasonable requirement is for the team to pick up at least four points in the three remaining games before the summer break, otherwise the current table position risks becoming permanent, and it just won’t work. But first and foremost, AIK and Brännström must deliver a decent, convincing effort in the derby against Djurgården this weekend. A flat game at Tele2 Arena and I have a hard time seeing a way back.