Few Premier League clubs appeared more vulnerable heading into the 2025/26 season than Brentford.
Thomas Frank had departed after seven years in charge, ending one of the most stable managerial eras in the division. Just as significant was the loss of Bryan Mbeumo and Yoane Wissa, whose 39 league goals had underpinned Brentford’s attack. Losing an experienced manager and the majority of a team’s goals in the same summer is often enough to trigger a sharp decline.
Instead, Brentford remained competitive.
By the halfway point of the campaign they sat ninth in the Premier League. That position alone does not prove they had improved, nor does it guarantee the club has discovered a succession model that will always succeed. It does, however, raise an important question.
How did Brentford absorb so much change without losing their identity?
The answer appears to lie less in individual personalities than in a football model built around repeatable tactical principles and functional roles. Rather than rebuilding their style every time key people leave, Brentford have shown that the core ideas behind their football can survive significant change.
The summer that should have changed everything
Replacing a successful manager is difficult.
Replacing the goals of two established forwards is equally challenging.
Doing both simultaneously would normally force a club into a tactical reset.
Thomas Frank had spent seven years shaping Brentford into one of the Premier League’s clearest tactical identities. His teams became known for direct progression, physicality, aerial dominance, organised defending and a relentless focus on set pieces.
When Frank departed, Brentford promoted Andrews from within after his work as the club’s set-piece coach.
That decision immediately suggested continuity rather than revolution.
Promoting internally does not automatically guarantee success, but it does increase the likelihood that existing coaching ideas, training methods and tactical language remain familiar throughout the squad.
The challenge was not simply to preserve Brentford’s style.
It was to preserve it while replacing a significant proportion of the team’s attacking production.
What actually survived
Despite the personnel changes, several defining characteristics of Brentford’s football remained intact.
The team continued to play direct passes into advanced areas rather than building every attack through long periods of possession.
Fast transitions remained a central feature of their attacking play, allowing Brentford to exploit space before opponents could fully organise themselves defensively.
Their strength in aerial situations also survived the managerial change.
That continuity is particularly important because Brentford’s aerial identity did not suddenly emerge under Andrews. During the 2024/25 season, the club led the Premier League with 14 headed goals, demonstrating that this aspect of their attacking profile was already deeply embedded before the new manager took charge.
Instead of introducing an entirely new philosophy, Andrews largely preserved the characteristics that had already become synonymous with Brentford.
This distinction matters.
The evidence points towards continuity of principles rather than imitation of a previous manager.
Principles matter more than formations
One of the most interesting aspects of Brentford’s season is that tactical continuity did not require tactical rigidity.
The underlying principles remained remarkably consistent even when defensive structures changed according to the opponent.
Vertical progression remained important.
Physical occupation of key spaces continued to define Brentford’s attacking approach.
Compact defending remained a priority.
Set pieces continued to receive significant emphasis.
These principles can exist within multiple formations.
That flexibility helps explain why Brentford were able to adjust match-specific details without abandoning their broader football identity.
Too often, teams become associated with formations rather than ideas.
In reality, formations are simply starting positions.
The more important question is how a team progresses the ball, defends transitions, attacks crosses and creates scoring opportunities.
The available evidence suggests Brentford’s identity is built around those repeatable behaviours rather than any fixed tactical diagram.
Replacing functions rather than names
Perhaps the clearest illustration of Brentford’s recruitment and coaching model is how they responded to the loss of Mbeumo and Wissa.
Replacing 39 league goals player-for-player would be unrealistic.
Instead, Brentford appear to have focused on replacing the function those players performed within the system.
At the 20-match point, Thiago supplied 44 per cent of Brentford’s league goals.
That does not mean he individually replaced both departing forwards.
Nor does it prove Brentford became a better attacking team.
It does suggest the club successfully restored one of the most important functions within their tactical structure: providing a reliable central focal point capable of converting the opportunities created by Brentford’s direct attacking style.
This is an important distinction.
Football systems depend on roles being performed effectively, not necessarily by the same individuals every season.
Recruitment therefore becomes less about replacing famous names and more about ensuring essential tactical functions continue to exist.
What Andrews changed
Although continuity has been the dominant theme, Brentford were not identical to the previous version of the team.
The available evidence suggests Andrews adapted the team’s defensive shape depending on the opposition while preserving the broader tactical principles.
That balance between consistency and flexibility is often overlooked.
Successful succession rarely means copying every detail of the previous regime.
Equally, it rarely requires abandoning everything that worked before.
Instead, Andrews appears to have retained Brentford’s core identity while making selective adjustments where circumstances demanded.
Those changes are subtle enough that the team’s broader style remained recognisable.
The manager changed.
The football largely did not.
The evidence has limits
While Brentford’s season offers an encouraging case study in organisational continuity, the available evidence also requires restraint.
Ninth place demonstrates resilience.
It does not necessarily demonstrate improvement.
Several alternative explanations deserve consideration.
Internal continuity almost certainly made the transition easier. Promoting a coach already familiar with the squad, tactical principles and club culture reduces the disruption that often accompanies managerial change.
Brentford’s attacking output also became heavily concentrated around Thiago. While his contribution was significant, relying on one player for such a large proportion of goals introduces its own risks.
Penalty reliance and individual finishing quality may also have influenced Brentford’s league position beyond what tactical structure alone can explain.
Perhaps most importantly, one successful managerial succession cannot establish a permanent organisational model.
Every future appointment will present different challenges.
Likewise, without access to Brentford’s internal recruitment processes and succession planning, it is impossible to prove exactly how much of this continuity resulted from deliberate long-term planning rather than favourable circumstances.
These uncertainties do not weaken the central argument.
They simply define its limits.
What other clubs can learn
Football clubs often become heavily associated with individual managers.
When those managers leave, the assumption is that identity leaves with them.
Brentford provide evidence that another approach is possible.
The club appears to have built an identity around repeatable tactical behaviours rather than individual personalities.
Verticality.
Physical occupation of key areas.
Compact defensive organisation.
Set-piece strength.
Direct progression.
These ideas survived changes in both management and personnel because they existed at a level deeper than formation or team selection.
That does not mean managers become unimportant.
Nor does it mean Brentford have solved succession indefinitely.
Instead, it suggests clubs may become more resilient when they define themselves through enduring football principles rather than the preferences of one exceptional coach.
Brentford’s 2025/26 season should therefore be viewed less as proof of a flawless succession model and more as evidence that organisational identity can outlast individual change.
In a league where managerial turnover often forces clubs to start again, that may prove to be Brentford’s most valuable achievement.
Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below, we’d love to hear them!
Stay tuned for future posts and please send us a message if there is a specific topic you would like to see covered. Additionally, if you have any ideas on how to improve these articles, please send them our way too.
As always, thanks for taking the time to read these posts!
JC
Data in this article is from premierleague.com and fbref.com so, thanks to them!
Main image is from thisway.co