What makes a good manager?

[SUIYHA]

There's always going to be contrasting views on analysing a manager.

• Winning because he's a great manager Vs Being carried by great players
• Failing because he's unlucky or not being given the tools to do his job properly Vs Being a **** manager
• Tinkering the tactics to suit the opposition Vs No philosophy/strategy
• Vision and direction Vs Stubbornness
• Authoritative Vs Alienating his players

For me, long term strategy is all well and good, but we all know that most managers don't get long term. Under perform for a year or two and your best players want to leave. I also think that if you focus on getting results in this season, you've got a much better chance of attracting better players and building on that success next year. Very few managers are like Hoddle and sign pensioners like Sheringham, Poyet, Redknapp and Ziege to play alongside Ferdinand, Anderton and Freund and expect them to still be any good in the second season. Most realise you need a good blend of youth and experience. Ferguson was able to last at Man Utd for so long because he adapted to the times. What's the point in having a "vision" if the football landscape is different in 5 years time? He had teams based around a 4-4-2 with wingers pumping crosses into the box for a big ****er like Mark Hughes. He had a 4-5-1 based around Van Nistelrooy being the focal point of the attack with Scholes making late runs into the box. He had a 4-3-3 based around Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez interchanging and being difficult to mark. It's about realising what you've got to work with, and getting the best out of them right now.

For me, the only three things, that everything else stems from, are:

1. The ability to spot, recognise and analyse technical skills in players and understand the kind of tactical systems and conditions they require to do their thing
2. Effective communication skills. The players need to understand exactly what you're trying to get them to do and to be prepared give 100% to make it work
3. Good training methods to maximise fitness and keep players technically sharp

If you're no good at number one, you'll struggle in the transfer market, you'll struggle tactically, you'll lose games against better opposition than you and you'll struggle to create chances

If you're no good at number two, players will choke in important matches, they won't follow your instructions properly, they'll panic under pressure and show a lack of composure to see out games, you'll fall out with people who challenge your authority, the media will mis-quote you and tear you to pieces.

If you're no good at number three, obviously, players will be slower on the pitch, tire quicker and pick up injuries. But you'll also see more sloppy defensive mistakes, more goals conceded from set-pieces, more sitters missed, possession regularly given away.


It's hard to evaluate when looking at a prospective manager what their training methods are like behind closed doors, same with their communications skills to an extent other than word of mouth. The thing is, with a lot of these things there's no right or wrong way of doing things. How many of their ex-players have come out and ****ged off Ancelotti, Wenger or Rodgers? Whereas Ferguson, Van Gaal and Mourinho have had more than their fair share of high profile disagreements with players, all in the name of showing authority. There's different ways to skin a cat. But there are key signs and indicators you can look for. The most important for me is that their teams always express technical skill, look like they're enjoying their football, don't make many careless mistakes and get results in the big games.

 

[Neymar]

Your Mourinho example is a complete and utter straw man. No one is saying that the reason you present is why he's a brilliant tactical manager. And presenting one out of essentially an infinite number of tactical decisions made and say that "this one didn't show tactical brilliance" doesn't constitute an argument.

But you look at the way his Chelsea team beat City away this season. You look at how his Chelsea and Inter teams were among the few to effectively bus-park/stop Barca at their best. You look at how he identifies players that fit his system and brings them in, combined with how he identifies players that aren't good fits and get rid of them. Just as quick, off the top of my head examples of where he shines where others fail.

Obviously my "200k striker vs 50k defender" analogy was a bit tongue in cheek. but the fact of the matter is, theres nothing really to suggest that mourinho can get his teams performing significantly above his expenditure. and that means that his tactical advantage vs other managers' tactics are possibly not as great as people otherwise think. You give the example of him being able to park the bus well vs pep's barca. But overall i can't really see much difference in the performances and the results when guardiola (with bayern and barca) has played other top english sides. Guardiola has even gone onto suggest that it is difficult vs all english sides due to the way they park the bus. All the top clubs do that against Barcelona. And all fairly well too. Even arsenal who have played barcelona a number of times have been in the games most of the time adopting this strategy. Di Matteo did it successfully too. and atletico too this year.

And for every Emirates Marketing Project game, theres other games where he has made mistakes. but people seem to really focus on games where he has set up defensively and hail that as being tactically sound. who's to say another manager setting up in another way (perhaps offensively) could not have got the same result.

I agree with this, but part of this is the fact that clubs with more financial muscle will be able to attract and keep top managers much better than smaller clubs.

yh, i agree that clubs with more money get the better managers. however, i still maintain that i do not think the gap in tactical nouse between manager's is as great as people suggest.

 

[Raziel]

i still maintain that i do not think the gap in tactical nouse between manager's is as great as people suggest.

It's small margins, but small margins are what make the difference between success and almost.

 

[Rob]

Winning football matches makes a good football manager. It really is that simple - all the best managers did or do it. It doesn't matter how you do it or how pretty it is along the way, as long as you win. Winning ugly, a term invented for title winning sides of the nineties, is also a term to describe the difference between a team not playing the football the fans want to see and not picking up points and the same team playing the same **** football and going home every week with all three points in the bag.

 

[metalgear]

good manager gets results more than what the resources of the club is expected to provide.
the results have to be quantified. some teams just want to achieve and end to others the means is more important than the end itself.
in football - its all about the league table. the cups are a bonus. injuries are a variation but thats what the manager is expected to deal with, like the weather.

 

[scaramanga]

Winning football matches makes a good football manager. It really is that simple - all the best managers did or do it. It doesn't matter how you do it or how pretty it is along the way, as long as you win. Winning ugly, a term invented for title winning sides of the nineties, is also a term to describe the difference between a team not playing the football the fans want to see and not picking up points and the same team playing the same **** football and going home every week with all three points in the bag.

A crap manager in charge of a £1b team will win most of their matches - as Mankini showed.

As the post above says, a good manager gets more out of the team than its value.

 

[Superted]

Man management and a strong, almost insanely strong, dedication to a philiosphy.

Also being able to identify people that will buy into that philosophy

no easy thing to do on any of those

In a nut shell. This is what made Fergie so good and Wenger initially.

Not only getting players who buy in, but getting rid of those who don't (Beckham, RVN, Stam, CRonaldo).

 

[ringo]

Tactical acumen.
Excellent man-management skills.
A good playing staff team -assistant manager etc etc.
Devolved authority from the club's executive management/owners (and therefore their support in a form other than mere words).
Time and experience.

That's not including all the characteristics and attributes that make you a good man-manager or able to understand tactics in the first place.

Oh yes..and a thick skin.

 

[braineclipse]

Obviously my "200k striker vs 50k defender" analogy was a bit tongue in cheek. but the fact of the matter is, theres nothing really to suggest that mourinho can get his teams performing significantly above his expenditure. and that means that his tactical advantage vs other managers' tactics are possibly not as great as people otherwise think. You give the example of him being able to park the bus well vs pep's barca. But overall i can't really see much difference in the performances and the results when guardiola (with bayern and barca) has played other top english sides. Guardiola has even gone onto suggest that it is difficult vs all english sides due to the way they park the bus. All the top clubs do that against Barcelona. And all fairly well too. Even arsenal who have played barcelona a number of times have been in the games most of the time adopting this strategy. Di Matteo did it successfully too. and atletico too this year.

And for every Emirates Marketing Project game, theres other games where he has made mistakes. but people seem to really focus on games where he has set up defensively and hail that as being tactically sound. who's to say another manager setting up in another way (perhaps offensively) could not have got the same result.

yh, i agree that clubs with more money get the better managers. however, i still maintain that i do not think the gap in tactical nouse between manager's is as great as people suggest.

I don't think I agree with that.

He did just what you say he didn't at:
-Uniao de Leiria in the league
-Porto by winning the CL (and just about every other tournament entered)
-Inter by winning the CL.
-Chelsea have won 3 PL titles after Abramovich took over, 2 of those have been won by Mourinho. Seems to me they've been better under him than under other managers, and that's obviously why he was brought back.

Real Madrid is the only "meh" period imo, and even then he actually managed to overtake Guardiola's Barcelona. You might think this was just "doing what should be done", but the reason Real even went for Mourinho in the first place despite him not being a typical Real Madrid manager (imo) was that they (and the rest of the world) thought this was a monumental task.

My point with him at Chelsea and Inter was that he stopped Barca when they were at their very best. I don't think Barca have been at that same level after Guardiola left.

 

[Neymar]

I don't think I agree with that.

He did just what you say he didn't at:
-Uniao de Leiria in the league
-Porto by winning the CL (and just about every other tournament entered)
-Inter by winning the CL.
-Chelsea have won 3 PL titles after Abramovich took over, 2 of those have been won by Mourinho. Seems to me they've been better under him than under other managers, and that's obviously why he was brought back.

Real Madrid is the only "meh" period imo, and even then he actually managed to overtake Guardiola's Barcelona. You might think this was just "doing what should be done", but the reason Real even went for Mourinho in the first place despite him not being a typical Real Madrid manager (imo) was that they (and the rest of the world) thought this was a monumental task.

My point with him at Chelsea and Inter was that he stopped Barca when they were at their very best. I don't think Barca have been at that same level after Guardiola left.

If I have this correct, mourinho was manager of União de Leiria for the 2001-2002 season. In which he finished 7th. A very respectable position. But I do not think he performed miracles by any stretch of the imagination. Just the season before (2000-01), they finished 5th, ahead of even Benfica). And after he left from 2002-03, their league positions have been; 5th, 10th, 15th, 7th, 7th. Basically their league positions are reflective of where you would roughly expect them to be given that they are in a league monopolised by Benfica, Porto, Sporting (and to a degree Boavista too). And where the rest of the teams have very limited budgets.

Mourinho’s two seasons in porto were 2002-03 and 2003-04. Where he did dominate and win the league both times. The two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival, porto finished 2nd and 3rd. Showing that porto were no mugs before his arrival. And after mourinho left, they have finished 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st. Again, in my opinion showing that what mourinho achieved cannot be described as anything extraordinary.

His UCL triumph was very very special. But lets not forget, for the most part, it is a cup competition. There have been countless 2nd division managers getting to finals of domestic cups here in England. And Monaco under deschamps got to the final vs mourinho. And Greece have even won a European championships. If you look at Benitez’s cup record alone, you would probably think he was the best manager in the world. My point is that cup results do not provide a great basis on which to analyse the performances of managers due to the inherent “luck” factor involved in them.

At inter milan, he did very well again too. No one can deny that. Importantly he won the ucl here. But even putting aside the fact that the ucl is a knockout competition, there was a massive financial factor in play which benefitted mourinho when you compare him to other inter milan managers.

Inter had won serie A in the two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival. By the time he came, he was probably taking over the best team in serie A. But in addition to this, the club president (Moratti) decided to break the bank in pursuit of European success. This meant that inter could field a team boasting the likes of Julio cesar (arguably the best keeper at the time), cambiasso, walter samuel, lucio, zanetti, thiago motta, etoo, sneijder, maicon, milito, balotelli, zlatan etc during mourinho’s tenure as manager there. No inter manager before or after mourinho has been able to field an all-star team such as this. After mourinho had won everything with inter and left, the club finances were in major problems. This meant that basically all the big names had to leave in order to balance the books. As a result inter finished 2nd in the following season after mourinho’s departure. And by the next season, they were 6th. They had no more money to compete at the top of European football.

If you look at that list of super star players in the above paragraph, hardly any of them remained at Inter two years after mourinho’s departure. That’s why inter haven’t been competing at the very top since. And it will probably take at least a decade before Inter can even think of getting back to the elite of European football. Some may say the success that they had was worth it. But was it really? Mourinho had no garuntee that he could have the level of success that he did. Inter took a massive risk. In another scenario, Inter could have got knocked out in the 2nd round of the ucl due to a refereeing decision. And still have spent all that money. Setting Inter back a decade or so. In my opinion, the only real winner was mourinho and his CV. What mourinho has done here is no different to what harry redknapp has been doing in England. He’s depleated club resources for short term success, and now the club is in an era of long term struggle. What’s going on at inter now is similar to what is going on at the likes of leeds and Portsmouth after a period of short term success.

At Chelsea, again I agree he did well. As highlighted by the fact that he has won 2 of the 3 epl titles that Chelsea have won. But again, I can’t agree that he did significantly any better than the Chelsea managers who followed him.

Mourinho was at Chelsea from 2004-2007. Winning: 2 epl titles, 2 league cups, 1 fa cup (and a community shield). In the last four seasons under 3 different managers (2009-2013), they have won: 1 epl title, 3 fa cups, 1 europa league, 1 ucl (and a community shield). I would say there isn’t much difference between these two sets of acheivments. But I’m sure there are many who would even argue that Chelsea were more prosperous (in terms of honors and titles) without mourinho.

At Real Madrid, I agree that it wasn’t the best period. But I accept that it was horrendous either. Basically, like everywhere else he has been at, his team preformed in the ball park of where you would expect them to given their financial expenditure vs his opponents’. Mourinho had spent more than Barcelona in the transfer window obviously. Especially due to the purchases of the likes of Kaka and Ronaldo. But the wages between Barcelona and Real Madrid were comparable. And as a result, its not a massive surprise that Barcelona did edge them during mourinho’s reign at Real Madrid.

Look at mourinho this season. He’s been trying to sell the “this Chelsea team is not ready yet” line throughout the whole season. And some have bought this. This is typical mourinho. He’s just all talk.
If a team who has signed the likes of Willian, Matic, schurrle, van ginkel, etoo, salah for the kind of money have done. And added to the likes of hazard, Oscar, terry, lampard, torres, cech, cole, ivanovic etc is “not ready yet”, when the hell will it ever be “ready”?

He tries to lower expectation as much as possible and talks himself up as much as possible. And people in England have bought into it. In spain, they haven’t. In contrast, theres Wenger. Someone who talks up his team and backs them to the hilt, and downplays his own part when his team does well. As a result, whenever things go bad, people blame wenger. The reality is, his players are 100k p/w players, whilst Chelsea’s are 200k p/w players. Its no wonder that Arsenal do not do as well as Chelsea, but do better than our 50k p/w players.

 

[superfaisty]

There's always going to be contrasting views on analysing a manager.

• Winning because he's a great manager Vs Being carried by great players
• Failing because he's unlucky or not being given the tools to do his job properly Vs Being a **** manager
• Tinkering the tactics to suit the opposition Vs No philosophy/strategy
• Vision and direction Vs Stubbornness
• Authoritative Vs Alienating his players

For me, long term strategy is all well and good, but we all know that most managers don't get long term. Under perform for a year or two and your best players want to leave. I also think that if you focus on getting results in this season, you've got a much better chance of attracting better players and building on that success next year. Very few managers are like Hoddle and sign pensioners like Sheringham, Poyet, Redknapp and Ziege to play alongside Ferdinand, Anderton and Freund and expect them to still be any good in the second season. Most realise you need a good blend of youth and experience. Ferguson was able to last at Man Utd for so long because he adapted to the times. What's the point in having a "vision" if the football landscape is different in 5 years time? He had teams based around a 4-4-2 with wingers pumping crosses into the box for a big ****er like Mark Hughes. He had a 4-5-1 based around Van Nistelrooy being the focal point of the attack with Scholes making late runs into the box. He had a 4-3-3 based around Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez interchanging and being difficult to mark. It's about realising what you've got to work with, and getting the best out of them right now.

For me, the only three things, that everything else stems from, are:

1. The ability to spot, recognise and analyse technical skills in players and understand the kind of tactical systems and conditions they require to do their thing
2. Effective communication skills. The players need to understand exactly what you're trying to get them to do and to be prepared give 100% to make it work
3. Good training methods to maximise fitness and keep players technically sharp

If you're no good at number one, you'll struggle in the transfer market, you'll struggle tactically, you'll lose games against better opposition than you and you'll struggle to create chances

If you're no good at number two, players will choke in important matches, they won't follow your instructions properly, they'll panic under pressure and show a lack of composure to see out games, you'll fall out with people who challenge your authority, the media will mis-quote you and tear you to pieces.

If you're no good at number three, obviously, players will be slower on the pitch, tire quicker and pick up injuries. But you'll also see more sloppy defensive mistakes, more goals conceded from set-pieces, more sitters missed, possession regularly given away.


It's hard to evaluate when looking at a prospective manager what their training methods are like behind closed doors, same with their communications skills to an extent other than word of mouth. The thing is, with a lot of these things there's no right or wrong way of doing things. How many of their ex-players have come out and ****ged off Ancelotti, Wenger or Rodgers? Whereas Ferguson, Van Gaal and Mourinho have had more than their fair share of high profile disagreements with players, all in the name of showing authority. There's different ways to skin a cat. But there are key signs and indicators you can look for. The most important for me is that their teams always express technical skill, look like they're enjoying their football, don't make many careless mistakes and get results in the big games.

Top post and a lot of things i would agree with. Clearly to be a successful club you need a balance between having a playing squad, a system and a good manager. Sometimes those three things are skewed, so the likes of Emirates Marketing Project were able to go out and buy an amazing first team and do well offsetting for the fact that Mancini wasn't their best manager, and another example if Wenger's boys where the squad has historically been decent without being truly amazing but the system works for them in getting decent results over the course of a season without really pushing them above and beyond.

For us we have a decent bunch of players, with very few worldies left (possibly Lloris), what we have lacked is a system that works in the EPL consistently (AVB's slow possession game didn't work with the players available and TS has us plying a lot more attacking without as much defensive capability) and a manager that can inspire the players and the fans / isn't so stubborn to see when thing are not working and change things around.

I agree it is hard to spot talent, but also agree there are signs to look for, which makes the TS appointment difficult to understand - if you're a businessman looking to take your business to the next level then you always look at track record - what has that person done and can i expect them to do the same or better for me.

AVB clearly impressed the powers that be with his vision for the club after singularly failing at Chelsea, as a result we'd all agree I think of how he handled his squad at the time, trying to change things too quickly without the support of the players. But he impressed Levy none the less and got the job. but his system didn't work with the players he had at his disposal in the end (and to be fair he had a lot of injuries to deal with), and he was too inflexible to change the system for the quality of players at his disposal. Push comes to shove, and ultimately Levy shoved AVB out the door. TS though had no track record so was a massive massive gamble on the part of Levy, a man not want to make such risky gambles.

Looking forward if you're Levy and Baldini - whomever is the coach next season is going to be a big call as they cannot afford to make another pigs ear of it. I think we will see Levy be less risk averse and hire someone with a proven track record, whomever that will be. but the key will be getting the balance better with a decent squad with a decent system of play and a decent manager - there are a few out there but the question is are they right for spurs and would they want to come to spurs?

 

[braineclipse]

If I have this correct, mourinho was manager of União de Leiria for the 2001-2002 season. In which he finished 7th. A very respectable position. But I do not think he performed miracles by any stretch of the imagination. Just the season before (2000-01), they finished 5th, ahead of even Benfica). And after he left from 2002-03, their league positions have been; 5th, 10th, 15th, 7th, 7th. Basically their league positions are reflective of where you would roughly expect them to be given that they are in a league monopolised by Benfica, Porto, Sporting (and to a degree Boavista too). And where the rest of the teams have very limited budgets.

Mourinho’s two seasons in porto were 2002-03 and 2003-04. Where he did dominate and win the league both times. The two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival, porto finished 2nd and 3rd. Showing that porto were no mugs before his arrival. And after mourinho left, they have finished 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st. Again, in my opinion showing that what mourinho achieved cannot be described as anything extraordinary.

His UCL triumph was very very special. But lets not forget, for the most part, it is a cup competition. There have been countless 2nd division managers getting to finals of domestic cups here in England. And Monaco under deschamps got to the final vs mourinho. And Greece have even won a European championships. If you look at Benitez’s cup record alone, you would probably think he was the best manager in the world. My point is that cup results do not provide a great basis on which to analyse the performances of managers due to the inherent “luck” factor involved in them.

At inter milan, he did very well again too. No one can deny that. Importantly he won the ucl here. But even putting aside the fact that the ucl is a knockout competition, there was a massive financial factor in play which benefitted mourinho when you compare him to other inter milan managers.

Inter had won serie A in the two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival. By the time he came, he was probably taking over the best team in serie A. But in addition to this, the club president (Moratti) decided to break the bank in pursuit of European success. This meant that inter could field a team boasting the likes of Julio cesar (arguably the best keeper at the time), cambiasso, walter samuel, lucio, zanetti, thiago motta, etoo, sneijder, maicon, milito, balotelli, zlatan etc during mourinho’s tenure as manager there. No inter manager before or after mourinho has been able to field an all-star team such as this. After mourinho had won everything with inter and left, the club finances were in major problems. This meant that basically all the big names had to leave in order to balance the books. As a result inter finished 2nd in the following season after mourinho’s departure. And by the next season, they were 6th. They had no more money to compete at the top of European football.

If you look at that list of super star players in the above paragraph, hardly any of them remained at Inter two years after mourinho’s departure. That’s why inter haven’t been competing at the very top since. And it will probably take at least a decade before Inter can even think of getting back to the elite of European football. Some may say the success that they had was worth it. But was it really? Mourinho had no garuntee that he could have the level of success that he did. Inter took a massive risk. In another scenario, Inter could have got knocked out in the 2nd round of the ucl due to a refereeing decision. And still have spent all that money. Setting Inter back a decade or so. In my opinion, the only real winner was mourinho and his CV. What mourinho has done here is no different to what harry redknapp has been doing in England. He’s depleated club resources for short term success, and now the club is in an era of long term struggle. What’s going on at inter now is similar to what is going on at the likes of leeds and Portsmouth after a period of short term success.

At Chelsea, again I agree he did well. As highlighted by the fact that he has won 2 of the 3 epl titles that Chelsea have won. But again, I can’t agree that he did significantly any better than the Chelsea managers who followed him.

Mourinho was at Chelsea from 2004-2007. Winning: 2 epl titles, 2 league cups, 1 fa cup (and a community shield). In the last four seasons under 3 different managers (2009-2013), they have won: 1 epl title, 3 fa cups, 1 europa league, 1 ucl (and a community shield). I would say there isn’t much difference between these two sets of acheivments. But I’m sure there are many who would even argue that Chelsea were more prosperous (in terms of honors and titles) without mourinho.

At Real Madrid, I agree that it wasn’t the best period. But I accept that it was horrendous either. Basically, like everywhere else he has been at, his team preformed in the ball park of where you would expect them to given their financial expenditure vs his opponents’. Mourinho had spent more than Barcelona in the transfer window obviously. Especially due to the purchases of the likes of Kaka and Ronaldo. But the wages between Barcelona and Real Madrid were comparable. And as a result, its not a massive surprise that Barcelona did edge them during mourinho’s reign at Real Madrid.

Look at mourinho this season. He’s been trying to sell the “this Chelsea team is not ready yet” line throughout the whole season. And some have bought this. This is typical mourinho. He’s just all talk.
If a team who has signed the likes of Willian, Matic, schurrle, van ginkel, etoo, salah for the kind of money have done. And added to the likes of hazard, Oscar, terry, lampard, torres, cech, cole, ivanovic etc is “not ready yet”, when the hell will it ever be “ready”?

He tries to lower expectation as much as possible and talks himself up as much as possible. And people in England have bought into it. In spain, they haven’t. In contrast, theres Wenger. Someone who talks up his team and backs them to the hilt, and downplays his own part when his team does well. As a result, whenever things go bad, people blame wenger. The reality is, his players are 100k p/w players, whilst Chelsea’s are 200k p/w players. Its no wonder that Arsenal do not do as well as Chelsea, but do better than our 50k p/w players.

I think he's done as well or better than the other managers at all those clubs, with the possible exception of Real Madrid. And on the whole he's outperformed anyone I can think of that's gotten similar chances at several big clubs.

All the managers at Chelsea post-Abramovich/post-Mourinho had the same resources available, Mourinho outperformed all of them. The same is true about those that preceded him at Inter and all managers before and after him at Porto. Considering the strength of Barca when Mourinho took over at Real I think his results whilst there where at least on par with those that preceded him.

Like most managers he tries to use the media to his advantage. But that doesn't make him all talk, not as long as he's actually getting the results! Seriously, Mourinho is all talk? By what standard?