How much difference do managers make?

[milo]

How much difference do managers make? Is the choice of manager the most important appointment a club makes or have larger back room teams and more specialists on the boards of most major clubs meant that the choice of manager matters less? Can anyone think of a brilliant manager that has joined a badly run club and dragged them up or a bad manager that has ruined a well run club?

 

[Crawley]

I think the bigger the club/manager, the more backroom staff he has doing the hard graft, making him look a lot better than he really is.

Can you imagine Fergie at 71 running round and round a training pitch?

I believe the smaller the club, the more involved the manager/coach is, and thus any manager bringing a team to promotion from lower leagues deserves far more plaudits

 

[Spursalot]

I think the bigger the club/manager, the more backroom staff he has doing the hard graft, making him look a lot better than he really is.

Can you imagine Fergie at 71 running round and round a training pitch?

I believe the smaller the club, the more involved the manager/coach is, and thus any manager bringing a team to promotion from lower leagues deserves far more plaudits

Maybe, but who do you think chose most of the back room staff at United?

 

[Wriggly]

They are the difference between a winning team or not.

 

[Raziel]

Managers can make a huge difference, a big part of it is how much of the club culture/ethic is built around the manager

- Classic example of Charlton under Curbs, not the most brilliant manager, but right fit
- the difference of Spurs under Ramos vs. Harry is another huge example of manager influence
- Some clubs like Cheat$ki/Real operate almost regardless of manager, the churn is expected, managed

United/ w/SAF is an institution, will be very interesting to see how it plays out, imo, anyone following SAF was destined to fail (in comparison, as well as I think United has only been in the running due to SAF in the last 3-5 years, their squad is weaker each year, and most of the big names go elsewhere now).

 

[Username]

The answer to this is always: Remember Ramos

 

[skyfarer]

Like most things I think the degree of advantage/disadvantage a club has is important - Swansea is better run than Chelsea for example, but Chelsea have such financial superiority over most of the clubs in this league that even crappy managers like Avram Grant can't drag them down. A less-good manager would hurt Swansea much more than Chelsea. OTOH, because Swansea are well run, it's hard to see them sticking with a poor manager for long. Their cohesive transfer policy that spans across managers makes them resilient, because they essentially still have the players, and the capacity to identify players, to play a certain style regardless of who is at the helm. The same kinda goes for us - Ramos couldn't really cripple us for good, because we still had the likes of Modric and Lennon and Bale and indeed Gomes here, and their talent is not going to be ruined by one guy unless that one guy managed to chase them off. Their form might be atrocious under a particular manager in a particular system, but the ability is still there. The credit imo should go to the staff who were able to identify that talent and convince them to come here.

The other thing is that each club is different in terms of how much weight a manager has within their set-up. For example, Chelsea and Saudi Sportswashing Machine managers have little to no control over transfers - their scouts are appointed by and answer to different masters and their managers don't have as much responsibility for the fate of the club. Moyes at Everton had far more control, albeit within far tighter financial limits. If Moyes was the one responsible for developing their backroom and scouting system and indeed youth set-up, then Everton are going to have a huge job on their hands replacing him! It's a massive hole, more so than at other clubs.

In general I believe that in the long term, two things are really crucial:

- One is the actual quality of the squad, which is mainly determined by your financial resources, how well run you are, and usually but not necessarily the ability of your manager to identify or at least recognize talent, depending on how much control he has over transfers (a range that goes from Rafa Benitez to Wenger/Pulis). If the squad is talented and balanced, the manager can simply be competent to do well. Even a bricky manager like Pardew is not going to ruin Saudi Sportswashing Machine for that long unless he drives away Graham Carr and all their Frenchies (though that's possible if he relegates them...).

- The other major issue is the 'fit' of a manager to a club. Is the manager willing and capable of coaching young players, or is he more of a tactician who wants to work with the best tools than a coach? Does the manager's preferred vision for a team work with the players that the club currently has and can attract? (For example, Hodgson's disciplined 4-4-2 clashed badly with the identity of the Liverpool team. A manager could completely redevelop a team in his vision, but that may well require more time and funds than many PL clubs can afford.) Does the manager work best with the young and eager (Wenger, Klopp), the honest professionals (Moyes, MON), or the talented but fickle super-egos (Mourinho, Ancelotti)?

Success for me is a 'team' thing - sometimes the manager determines the team, but not always. More often the 'team' determines the manager - and when it clicks, good things can happen.

***

But the question is whether a manager can be so brilliant as to revolutionize a poor club, whether that poverty is due to being badly run or just plain poor. So essentially, he has low resources to start with. I guess I would have to ask: how poor? How much of a 'revolution' (eg. from lower league to promotion, relegation to midtable, or midtable to the top)? What league are we talking about? For example, we have at least four or five financial heavyweights in our league, compared to just Bayern in the Bundesliga. It would be a lot harder to Klopp to replicate BvB's rise over here, simply because the financial inequality is even greater.

I think SAF at Aberdeen was certainly a revolution. It was the first time one of the big two had not won the league in fifteen years. And it wasn't a one-off either - they went on to win the Cup Winners' Cup the next season.

Unfortunately, I think the environment has changed substantially since then. I cannot see anyone, no matter how genius, leading a midtable club or even us to win the premiership anytime soon. We are simply at too great a resource disadvantage with too many clubs in this league (compare Chelsea's midfield to ours - they spent over 100m more), and players primarily care about money these days. *If* turmoil sets in at those other clubs then we might have a very good season with a top manager, but in the long term, fundamentals matter. There are plenty of clubs with great set-ups, the problem is that they are still maximizing themselves within limits - while Chelsea/City have no limits.

 

[metalgear]

depends on the set up of the team, the players, the management etc.

the manger is the one to string all of them together, but everything would still work with or without the manager. note chelsea - regardless the manager - they can still win the CL! but with the right manager that team would have achieved even more.

agree that success is a team thing but it takes a lot of factors to align to get everything working perfectly - the most challenging at top clubs is the temperament of the players on the bench - so the manager has got to take the rap for it, and not many can succeed at managing egos of the top players.

as Man U, Everton, Arsenal and to a certain degree Spurs with Levy have proven, having stability at the club and a strong hand over players can smooth out the risk/volatility ... which feeds on itself and over time, creates the institution that is larger than any individual at the club.

 

[Fuego]

For the most part, I agree with Skyfarer, as usual. Also, I think that SAF team was the last non old firm team to win the SPL too.

-------

Rijkaard very nearly messed up on a seemingly impossible level in the 2006 CL final, so I'm probably not his biggest fan, but as far as what sort of difference a manager can have...


Rijkaard had almost all the pieces of Guardiola's amazing 08/09 team, but only managed to come third in the season before Guardiola's arrival. (Rijkaard didn't have Dani Alves or Pique... Busquets was in the youth team. Guardiola didn't have: Ronaldinho, Deco, Thuram, Zambrota or Edmilson.)

The season before Guardiola came:

1 Real Madrid (C) 85 points.
2 Villarreal 77 points.
3 Barcelona 67 points.


The season after:

1 Barcelona (C) 87 points.
2 Real Madrid 78 points.


They won the treble that year.

Rijkaard was far from clueless, but Guardiola took Barca to a whole new level. (And naturally I'm biased enough to think Mourinho did something very special by getting the league's record number of points in Guardiola's last season. He went up against a team people say was the best ever and he got the record number of points in yet another major league. (Whenever he leaves a country, he is the holder of the record number of points.)

---------

I think the value of having one of the best managers ever is huge. I'm more scared of Chelsea with Mourinho than I would be if they had Avram Grant but signed Messi. United without SAF is a bigger example of weakening than when they sold Ronaldo.



Look at Liverpool, wasted about 100m and went backwards. QPR, wasted a ton of money and also went backwards. SAF's managerial style was to be director of football and head coach, he would have done far better in both scenarios.

It's impossible to say SAF = +X points per season though... Each season it differs even at United, so it's impossible to say if he had been given Jose's Chelsea job what would have happened.

I think Mourinho will retire as the greatest of all time though. He constantly goes up against the best managers, the best teams, etc... If he spends a few years in Germany and France, if he wins a few more CLs, if he keeps breaking records, there will be nothing left for him to do. I personally think the record he had about home games was the most impressive... It's really scary to be able to put your house on Mourinho not losing at home, if he does end up at Chelsea next season and goes unbeaten at home in domestic competitions again, I don't see either of the Manchester Clubs beating him to the title, they both tend to rely on home form.

 

[africanspurs]

i feel this is gearing up to have reasons to justify david moyes being a relative success at man united

 

[milo]

For the most part, I agree with Skyfarer, as usual. Also, I think that SAF team was the last non old firm team to win the SPL too.

-------

Rijkaard very nearly messed up on a seemingly impossible level in the 2006 CL final, so I'm probably not his biggest fan, but as far as what sort of difference a manager can have...


Rijkaard had almost all the pieces of Guardiola's amazing 08/09 team, but only managed to come third in the season before Guardiola's arrival. (Rijkaard didn't have Dani Alves or Pique... Busquets was in the youth team. Guardiola didn't have: Ronaldinho, Deco, Thuram, Zambrota or Edmilson.)

The season before Guardiola came:

1 Real Madrid (C) 85 points.
2 Villarreal 77 points.
3 Barcelona 67 points.


The season after:

1 Barcelona (C) 87 points.
2 Real Madrid 78 points.


They won the treble that year.

Rijkaard was far from clueless, but Guardiola took Barca to a whole new level. (And naturally I'm biased enough to think Mourinho did something very special by getting the league's record number of points in Guardiola's last season. He went up against a team people say was the best ever and he got the record number of points in yet another major league. (Whenever he leaves a country, he is the holder of the record number of points.)

---------

I think the value of having one of the best managers ever is huge. I'm more scared of Chelsea with Mourinho than I would be if they had Avram Grant but signed Messi. United without SAF is a bigger example of weakening than when they sold Ronaldo.



Look at Liverpool, wasted about 100m and went backwards. QPR, wasted a ton of money and also went backwards. SAF's managerial style was to be director of football and head coach, he would have done far better in both scenarios.

It's impossible to say SAF = +X points per season though... Each season it differs even at United, so it's impossible to say if he had been given Jose's Chelsea job what would have happened.

I think Mourinho will retire as the greatest of all time though. He constantly goes up against the best managers, the best teams, etc... If he spends a few years in Germany and France, if he wins a few more CLs, if he keeps breaking records, there will be nothing left for him to do. I personally think the record he had about home games was the most impressive... It's really scary to be able to put your house on Mourinho not losing at home, if he does end up at Chelsea next season and goes unbeaten at home in domestic competitions again, I don't see either of the Manchester Clubs beating him to the title, they both tend to rely on home form.

I'm not saying that Mourinho is a poor coach, he clearly isn't, but how much of his success is down to his management ability and how much is it down to him going to clubs with a very solid foundation and money to spend?

 

[braineclipse]

I'm not saying that Mourinho is a poor coach, he clearly isn't, but how much of his success is down to his management ability and how much is it down to him going to clubs with a very solid foundation and money to spend?

Who has replicated what he's done?

Sure, money helps, but he's consistently gotten results with that money in a way that I don't think many managers have been able to match. He's consistently been getting big profile, high budget jobs because he's been delivering results time and time again. And he's delivered results where others haven't.

Ranieri at Chelsea didn't succeed, at least not to the level they expected. Mourinho came in and succeeded immediately. Mancini took much longer to just edge a league win at City. Mourinho's points record at Chelsea still stands. Inter did well in the league before him, but at least as well with him and then won the CL as well. Real were a great side, but they looked distinctly worse than Barca, he won the league there as well though, where others had failed.

And that's not even going into what he did in Portugal.

You might say that there haven't been many managers replicating what he's done because very few have been given a chance to try, but there's a reason why he's been given that chance. His results.

 

[braineclipse]

In general for this thread:

I kind of agree with Redknapp, a lot of how the team performs on the pitch is down to how good the players are. It's obviously possible to fudge it up and under perform, no doubt. But although you sometimes see teams over perform it rarely lasts for extended periods of time unless they manage to bring in better players on the back of their initial results.

That's why I think a large portion of how well a manager does long term comes down to their ability (and luck) in the transfer market, in bringing through younger players and in improving the ability of their current players. Sure tactics and playing systems are important, but it's possible to succeed with a variation of formations and playing styles as long as you get in the right players. If managers fail in the transfer market though they're pretty much doomed.

A lot of managers might be thinking "if only I was in the position Fergy was in, with a settled team, respect from the players and money in the bank I could be a massive success". To some extent I think that's right, but it's about getting into that position. The great managers build those great settled teams, get the respect from their players and money usually follows success. Of course getting there is more short term, again what they do in the transfer market is very important although getting the system right when you have to work with the players you have available and limited resources is obviously more difficult than continuing on after a team is settled.

 

[scaramanga]

How much difference do managers make? Is the choice of manager the most important appointment a club makes or have larger back room teams and more specialists on the boards of most major clubs meant that the choice of manager matters less? Can anyone think of a brilliant manager that has joined a badly run club and dragged them up or a bad manager that has ruined a well run club?

King Kenny to some extent - both on and off the pitch.

 

[Superted]

Mark Hughes at QPR. Not necessarily well run but he had the resources to establish them in the Premier Keague for years to come.

As for the opposite, pains me to say but with the turmoil Arsenal were having first with Graham then Rioch, for Wenger to come in and bring instant success and stability was amazing.

 

[braineclipse]

King Kenny to some extent - both on and off the pitch.

Isn't Souness the posterboy for fudging up Liverpool as a manager? Although he also gets an honorable mention for his days at Blackburn and Saudi Sportswashing Machine I think.

I think the question sets an almost impossibly high bar though. Almost by definition if a club is well run a single manager shouldn't be able to ruin that club.

Similarly no manager can work miracles on their own, there must be others at the club doing a good job for a club to be dragged up. But the examples of Ferguson, Wenger and Klopp are worth mentioning. There are examples on a smaller scale too, what has happened at Swansea seems remarkable and Martinez seems to get at least quite a bit of the credit for that and might be worth a mention for example.

 

[Richie]

Uniteds squad is actually quite weak. Ferguson has been exceptional to get that club to win as much as he has in recent years.

 

[milo]

King Kenny to some extent - both on and off the pitch.

First or second time? The job was different in his two spells there. I think in his second spell the club was a shambles off of the pitch and the poor performances on the pitch were largely a result of that.

 

[Jurgen the German]

The England manager always gets way, way too much blame for the failure of the team. Granted they have to get the best out of the players, play the correct system and play players in their best position, but it's not like they can go and buy players. They basically have to work with what they have.

 

[Jurgen the German]

First or second time? The job was different in his two spells there. I think in his second spell the club was a shambles off of the pitch and the poor performances on the pitch were largely a result of that.

Well, he inherited a great Liverpool side the first time around.