The importance (or not) of the Manager

SlickRic

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It stems from the Liverpool collapse of the last 18 months, but also the start Leicester have made to the season.

And before I go on...this is NOT a Rodgers bashing thread...

Are there any teams that can think of, past or present, that looking at them, you think that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference who is managing them, they'd do well.

Liverpool 2013/14, and the Suarez juggernaut. How many other managers, with that attack, with that player, would've got 2nd? We see now what has happened without those players.

Leicester have seamlessly gone into this season exactly how they ended last, even with a different manager. Pace, power and attacking flair. Ranieri changed very little, so what has he done that no other manager could do?

So...what do you think?

And are there any teams you've ever watched and said 'the manager doesn't really matter too much'?

Bounty Hunter

SlickRic wrote: »

And are there any teams you've ever watched and said 'the manager doesn't really matter too much'?

In some ways this reminds more of the recent thread about Swansea. Interchangeable managers in many ways but a philosophy that ran throughout the club including the playing staff which lead to their style of play and meant how they were coached i.e to play that way.

I'm sure many would cite Barca too but in a slightly different way. I mean how often were Rijkaard / Guardiola questioned with regards if they were actually that good or was it just that they happened to manage Messi, Xavi and co

That said it will always matter who the manager is with regards to certain things. A quick look in the Villa thread will show you everyone bemoaning Sherwoods subs, 2-0 up but being overun in midfield so... he brings on two forwards!

Agent Coulson

Swansea, Southampton, Crystal Palace, West Brom are among the teams that set up a club philosophy on how they wanted to compete without having the vast riches of the top 6 clubs in England.

Each club has it own version of this philosophy and they choose managers who will complement and enhance this philosophy going forward they are also in a position that if a manager fails he won't have damaged that philosophy beyond repair.


Stoke is an example of one of these teams that cemented it's place in the league playing one way and is now in the process of changing that way will it work probably but they haven't put the club in any financial danger if it doesn't.


Bournemouth, Norwich & Leicester are teams following in the same footsteps as Swansea etc, will any of teams ever compete for a title probably not in the short term but they may have a crack at 4th place every now and then.


I don't think the manager matters as such to these clubs its the club philosophy the matters more.


When it comes to title contenders and Champion League contenders then a managers importance comes into play a man who can thrive on that pressure and still keep his head all the while having to make high pressure decisions and tactical changes when it really counts.


There is only a hand full of those kind of managers and they are wanted as much as the hand full of players that can change games on there own.

larchielads

I asked this question before in here and got laughed at.
Do u think some of ferries teams wouldve won the league without him considerin some of his teams weren't that good on paper? Like he had some average players in his sides that done bugger all before and after they signed for utd.

Harry Palmr

larchielads wrote: »

I asked this question before in here and got laughed at.
Do u think some of ferries teams wouldve won the league without him considerin some of his teams weren't that good on paper? Like he had some average players in his sides that done bugger all before and after they signed for utd.

I think Fergie is a bit of an outlier in this regard, he certainly seemed to have the ability to drive a collective that contained players who were in isolation average or otherwise mediocre. Old school in that regard as well - Clough's Derby and Forest (esp) teams were not brilliant except as a unit under his coaching when they buy into the vision, famously at Leeds they rebelled as they thought they had little or nothing to prove to a provincial upstart.

Its not as if Manchester Utd is some sort of machine either, how many managers did they get through between Busby and SAF? None of them lit the place up bar some FA Cups.

Here is that brief thread on Swansea that I started as referenced by Bounty Hunter.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96813038

NIMAN

When we're all having football arguments down the pub, who hasn't said that they could manage barca or Madrid to the title?

Bounty Hunter

NIMAN wrote: »

When we're all having football arguments down the pub, who hasn't said that they could manage barca or Madrid to the title?

or Celtic the past several years

Harry Palmr

Celtic might have a hard time of this season, up the Dons!

PhlegmyMoses

I don't think that Leicester are a great example. They are on the crest of a wave but when you look at their squad, it's full of dross. Barring one or two exceptions, it wouldn't look out of place in the Championship.

Tomagotchye

That Fulham side that reached the Europa League final. Average players, that werent much without Hodgeson I would think? Manager's are definitely more coaches now than managers

Paully D

Soccernomics did a study on this looking at 15 years worth of data which outlined that the size of a club's wage bill in the Premier League generally dictates where they will finish. The correlation between a club's wage bill and league position over that period was just over/under a whopping 90%. I can't remember exactly which.

There's obviously a few exceptions but personally I agree with their findings. Most managers are largely irrelevant and it far more often that not comes down to wages available. Players tend to go where they will be paid most. Not that I blame them nor could say I wouldn't do the same, but look at some of the excellent footballers around the world playing in the middle of the desert or leagues far below their level of ability, purely because of wages.

Here's a good read on same regarding Soccernomics' study if anyone's interested:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html

RayCon

SlickRic wrote: »

And before I go on...this is NOT a Rodgers bashing thread...?

Booo ..... why not ?

dfx-

The manager is influential. Rainieri is continuing on what worked for Leicester as far as I can see. Had he chosen something different, who knows. But it's Rainieri's awareness to go with what is working that makes the big difference or no difference...

What does seem interesting is that despite all the financial doping of the Premier League, clubs seem not to defined by individual seasons. A lot of teams are just carrying on as if they were playing every week through the Summer.

£800m later and yet not much changed unless the manager comes in and does something different to the previous boss. To me, that's the testament to the influence of the manager. West Ham might be the one club who have changed styles, but also changed manager and started competitive games earlier.

Winston Payne

dfx- wrote: »

The manager is influential. Rainieri is continuing on what worked for Leicester as far as I can see. Had he chosen something different, who knows. But it's Rainieri's awareness to go with what is working that makes the big difference or no difference...

What does seem interesting is that despite all the financial doping of the Premier League, clubs seem not to defined by individual seasons. A lot of teams are just carrying on as if they were playing every week through the Summer.

£800m later and yet not much changed unless the manager comes in and does something different to the previous boss. To me, that's the testament to the influence of the manager. West Ham might be the one club who have changed styles, but also changed manager and started competitive games earlier.

A big TV deal dictated by market factors ( ie. Sky madly panicking) isn't financial doping no matter how many times you claim it is. Financial doping can occur within the league where the deal is struck, yes. But the deal isn't what is meant by financial doping and it's very disingenuous of you to keep claiming that it is.

bucketybuck

When considering the importance of the managers its worth remembering that really there is an incredibly small margin between success and failure. There are so many factors involved that a perfectly good manager can fail while a rubbish manager gets lucky and rides the crest of a wave to success.

David Moyes is the perfect example in my opinion. He will always be labelled a failure from his time at United, but had just a few things been done differently he could easily still have the job there and now be starting to become a force. Had he been more assertive in his first few months, had he acted quicker on identifying and getting just a few better players, had a few results here and there gone his way, had it just "clicked" on the field then who knows where he could have taken the club. People will scoff and loudly claim that he would never ever have been a success but thats too simplistic. He is a damn good manager and will prove that in time, but it just didn't work out for him.

Just look at Van Gaal, by almost every measure his record and his performance is worse than Moyes was, but he got the breaks where needed, scraped into top four and gets nowhere near the abuse Moyes suffered. Its fine lines for the manager and luck plays a massive part.

Di Matteo got a Champions league win, was that manager skill or just getting the breaks? Pulis and Pardew went into clubs and went on great runs, manager skill or just riding the crest of a wave? Phil Scolari flopped big time at Chelsea, is he a crap manager or just didn't get the breaks?

Its all fine lines, so while the manager of the entire club is hugely influential to what is happening, at the same time we probably shouldn't over think his importance either.

dfx-

Winston Payne wrote: »

A big TV deal dictated by market factors ( ie. Sky madly panicking) isn't financial doping no matter how many times you claim it is. Financial doping can occur within the league where the deal is struck, yes. But the deal isn't what is meant by financial doping and it's very disingenuous of you to keep claiming that it is.

it's not just the TV deal though.