So there is no secret in what I think about the current manager, but how much percentage wise do you think managers matter in terms of real points?
Sir Alex, Pep Gardiola and the Special One produces a strong case of "a lot". Our last couple of changes of the guard suggests otherwise (new manager, more or less same place in the table etc.).
Is the role of the manager overrated and/or how much does he contribute to the end result?
I happen to think he is very important and probably contributes 30% to the end result. i.e. A good manager can make an average squad look good and a bad manager can make a good squad look terrible (Inter)
I think the manager is crucial.
A new manager who takes over a good squad and doesn't interfere can manage by doing very little but if he's smart enough not to make unnecessary changes that probably makes him a good manager.
Jol wanted to introduce youth and a more attacking formation. May turn out that he was dumb to make unnecessary changes but he inherited a team getting older and I think he made the right call.
West Ham would not have been relegated if they'd appointed an Alladyce, Hodgson or even MacLaren type. With the hapless Grant they had no chance.
% wise I'd say 60%.
I'd say the average manager doesn't make a huge difference - maybe 10% to 20% either way when you switch from one competent Joe Bloggs to another. Maybe more of an effect if e.g. the training changes, as that can shake some life into disinterested players. (But in that case, which Joe Bloggs is walking out and which one walking in doesn't matter - any change would be good.)
But if you get a really good manager (i.e. someone who is absolutely right for the club/squad/finances) that can make a huge difference. Likewise, a really bad manager (i.e. someone not competent and/or not right for the club/squad/finances) can make a huge difference.
The improvement in FFC between Sanchez and Hodgson wasn't all about Hodgson being the messiah, then - it was also because we were coming from such a low point (-100%) to such a high (+100). The 200% swing in our performance was due in part to Sanchez. Thanks Lawrie. :011:
BTW, Finn, did you ever explain *why* you were so sure from day one that Jol is a disaster? Or are you psychic? :hook:
I had a mate who reckoned that the best way to look at business was with football analogies. So turning that on its head I think you need the manager to set the strategy and system, to motivate and ensure that the team members know their role. At the end of the day, the performances in the field are down to the team as a collective, but the manager gets the blame if the system is poor.
Some managers give it their all with revolutionary preparation techniques, some just go through the same old stuff week in.
I think you're about right that a manager contributes 30%. It's his strategy, and his team selection, motivation and preparation, but a lot is left to the team to actually get right on the day.
In my opinion, I'd say a manager is crucial to the well being of the team, but this doesn't necessarily have to be down to the manager himself, if you know what I mean? I'll try to explain.
A manager is important for a number of reasons:
Players - The manager must bring in the right players to a fit a formation and drivet he team forward at the same time, look and Ferguson this season with Young for example, he fits MUFCs system very well and has helped to drive on what was a stagnent midfield. Same with Cesc Fabregas at Barca, although the midfield at Barca wasn't stagnant at all.
Management - The manager is in charge of all the players, he must manage them well, this is crucial to the team performance if a manager doesn't have the support of his players they won't perform well on the pitch, taking the Argentinian national team under Batista for instance. As aFFCn_Fan pointed out, man management and motivation is key, and I think Woy did a fantastic job of that here in his tenure to drag a team out of the duldrums to a Europa League final.
Formation - The manager has to pick a formation that is going to fit an existing squad but also allow for developement during a tenure, which too an extent, happened under Woy and something that Guardiola has done magnificently with in his tenure at Barcelona.
Overall, I'd say a manager is worth maybe 40% to the team. Coaches are critical, especially when it comes to the formation and conditioning of the players, they must drill them so well to gel a formation and to make sure a player knows their role in the system.
I'd say a good chairman/board is worth more to the team that the manager. As Finn pointed out, Inter hired a coach that totally changed the philosophy and shape of a team with an excellent squad, thus reducing effectiveness of players. Napoli on the other hand were fantastic, they hired a manager with a wealth of experience at playing in their formation to continue the progress they had made in the past years. We have a good board in terms of providing funds and they are rarely 'gung-ho' in their decisions and take time to assess, our board have fantastic relationships with managers which is a plus too.
Anyway, thats my two cents.
Agree with Mr ClarksOriginal and Mr Tony.
The other crucial factor about a manager is their ability to:
1. Attract good players to us through their track record, charisma, personal network, etc.
2. Retain the good players we have already got. Players will readily move on if they fall out of love with their gaffer (rather than their club).
Get this motivational aspect wrong and the consequences could be serious.
Quote from: Burt on September 26, 2011, 01:58:29 PM
Agree with Mr ClarksOriginal and Mr Tony.
The other crucial factor about a manager is their ability to:
1. Attract good players to us through their track record, charisma, personal network, etc.
2. Retain the good players we have already got. Players will readily move on if they fall out of love with their gaffer (rather than their club).
Get this motivational aspect wrong and the consequences could be serious.
Indeed Sir Burt, +1
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
I'd say a good chairman/board is worth more to the team that the manager.
This cannot be under-stated as well.
MAF has been a godsend.
A less patient chairman would have fired Hughes after we lost to WHU on Boxing Day, or even perhaps given Jol a couple more matches to "sort it out".
It is no coincidence in my view that the more successful clubs have chairmen and boards that do not tinker in the day-to-day running of their club, and are prepared to see out any short-term losses in form.
I thought Ferguson was nearly out, but not according to Chalton, you've got to say he has made a difference to United.
Man Utd legend disputes Ferguson was once on verge of sack
Sir Bobby Charlton claims Sir Alex Ferguson would not have been sacked if he had lost that fateful FA Cup tie at Nottingham Forest.
It has gone down in history that if Manchester United had fallen in their 1990 third-round clash with Brian Clough's side at the City Ground, Ferguson would have been out of a job.
As it turned out a Mark Robins header propelled United on course towards Wembley, where they needed two games to overcome Crystal Palace before lifting the first silverware of the Ferguson era.
And, as the Glaswegian gets ready to overtake Sir Matt Busby as the longest-serving United manager of all time on Sunday, Charlton insists United were on a path to glory, no matter what the outcome of that one match in Nottingham was.
"The media were the ones who were pushing," recalled Charlton, who has remained an influential figure at Old Trafford throughout Ferguson's 24-year reign.
"If Alex Ferguson got sacked it would have been a really good story for them.
"In fairness, their philosophy was based on what they had before. If a manager was unsuccessful, you sack him.
"But behind the scenes, Alex was already really successful. There was not a thought about the future of Alex Ferguson at this club."
Although he acknowledges he was one of Ferguson's main defenders in the boardroom, Charlton insists there was no impassioned speech on the Scot's behalf.
"I didn't have to say anything. They all knew," he said.
"You have a feeling at a football club whether things are right or wrong.
"There was no nastiness about Alex when he lost a match. It was just a feeling of 'it will happen'.
"You just felt success was coming, so you couldn't criticise him.
"Half the problems that people get into is the fact that they get rid of managers too soon. We would not make that mistake."
Quote from: Burt on September 26, 2011, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
I'd say a good chairman/board is worth more to the team that the manager.
This cannot be under-stated as well.
MAF has been a godsend.
A less patient chairman would have fired Hughes after we lost to WHU on Boxing Day, or even perhaps given Jol a couple more matches to "sort it out".
It is no coincidence in my view that the more successful clubs have chairmen and boards that do not tinker in the day-to-day running of their club, and are prepared to see out any short-term losses in form.
Indeed, an example of such point is now with a certain Mr Wenger. I've maintained within my short years (I am 20) that stability is success. Football is a sensationalised world at the moment, the most imporatnant thing is stability, this is why a board that knows what they are doing is a good thing to have. Chelsea prove to everyone that sacking managers after a season doesn't work. Success needs time, E.G MUFC.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to form a team of say 17 players and have them decide everything for themselves as to how they will approach the game. Would they instinctively choose the best players in the best positions? Would they develop tactics naturally, and evolve to the dynamic elements of each game?
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Burt on September 26, 2011, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
I'd say a good chairman/board is worth more to the team that the manager.
This cannot be under-stated as well.
MAF has been a godsend.
A less patient chairman would have fired Hughes after we lost to WHU on Boxing Day, or even perhaps given Jol a couple more matches to "sort it out".
It is no coincidence in my view that the more successful clubs have chairmen and boards that do not tinker in the day-to-day running of their club, and are prepared to see out any short-term losses in form.
Indeed, an example of such point is now with a certain Mr Wenger. I've maintained within my short years (I am 20) that stability is success. Football is a sensationalised world at the moment, the most imporatnant thing is stability, this is why a board that knows what they are doing is a good thing to have. Chelsea prove to everyone that sacking managers after a season doesn't work. Success needs time, E.G MUFC.
Success needs time
AND money, the latter being crucial for sustained success
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on September 26, 2011, 03:01:32 PM
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Burt on September 26, 2011, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: ClarksOriginal on September 26, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
I'd say a good chairman/board is worth more to the team that the manager.
This cannot be under-stated as well.
MAF has been a godsend.
A less patient chairman would have fired Hughes after we lost to WHU on Boxing Day, or even perhaps given Jol a couple more matches to "sort it out".
It is no coincidence in my view that the more successful clubs have chairmen and boards that do not tinker in the day-to-day running of their club, and are prepared to see out any short-term losses in form.
Indeed, an example of such point is now with a certain Mr Wenger. I've maintained within my short years (I am 20) that stability is success. Football is a sensationalised world at the moment, the most imporatnant thing is stability, this is why a board that knows what they are doing is a good thing to have. Chelsea prove to everyone that sacking managers after a season doesn't work. Success needs time, E.G MUFC.
Success needs time AND money, the latter being crucial for sustained success
Yes, definitely.
However, Everton seem to buck that trend, they work on a shoe string and achieve places way above what they should be achieving, success isn't just titles after all.
If its the manager picking the team then he is the most important person.
They have the biggest say in who is on the pitch for a start. Why do the joint coaches/managers always fail? because you always need someone somewhere to make the final decision.
I still maintain I have never seen a bigger change in individual players than when Tigana took over, run of the mill journeymen players became so different.
How much do they contribute to a result?.....51%, the rest is down to the players, but thats a different subject.
I've quoted this before on here. I can't remember the name of the coach [a black guy who coached Florida A&M about 50 years ago] who said it, but he said it about Paul "Bear" Bryant. It works as a good measure of a top manager in any sport:
"Not only can he take his'n and beat your'n, he can take your'n and beat his'n."
The converse of that can be seen with the Hodgson transformation of underperforming, head-down players under Sanchez into strong contributors to Fulham success -- Hughes and Baird leap to mind.
It's really a matter of horses for courses. Sanchez's Fulham direly needed the discipline and organization that Hodgson gave them. Liverpool's "entertainers" felt devalued and hobbled by that same regime.
For a long while I considered the manager's role to be somewhat (and increasingly) overrated. It is much easier to sack one manager than half-a-dozen players and I tended to consider that the assumption of responsibility and the vulnerability of dismissal to be more a part of a manager's inflated salary than any particular managerial magic. The appointment of Roy Hodgson and the palpable improvements he made to a failing side made me revise my thinking.
At the start of the season I looked at 'all' the managereal changes at Fulham since I started supporting the club, comparing the last 20 [and 5] league results of the outgoing manager with the first 20 [and 5] of his replacement. I sent it to another forum, but will post it here as my first contribution to this one:
34 [5] w D. Livingstone - B. Jezzard [15] 43 +
18 [3] w B. Jezzard – V. Buckingham [6] 23 +
22 [3] s V. Buckingham – B. Robson [6] 16 -
18 [5] s B. Robson – B. Dodgin [2] 13 -
19 [4] s B. Dodgin – A. Stock [4] 27 +
26 [7] w A. Stock – B. Campbell [1] 18 -
21 [4] s B. Campbell – M.Macdonald[4] 27 +
30 [7] s M. Macdonald – R. Harford [12] 40 +
12 [3] s R. Harford – R. Lewington [5] 25 +
20 [3] s R. Lewington – A. Dicks [3] 17 o/-
20 [2] s A. Dicks – D. MacKay [5] 32 +
23 [4] s D. MacKay – I. Branfoot [8] 26 +
16 [3] s? I. Branfoot – M. Adams [10] 30 +
36 [6] s M. Adams – R. Wilkins [6] 33 o/-
30 [6] s R. Wilkins – K. Keegan [10] 40 +
43 [8] w K. Keegan – P. Bracewell/K. Reidle [7] 32 -
43 [7] s P. Bracewell/K. Reidle – J. Tigana [15] 49 +
23 [4] s J. Tigana – C. Coleman [10] 35 +
18 [3] s C. Coleman – L. Sanchez [4] 16 -
15 [1] s L. Sanchez – R. Hodgson [2] 23 +
19 [4] w R. Hodgson – M. Hughes [7] 19 o/+
31 [10] w M. Hughes – M. Jol
The table shows the outgoing and incoming managers with (from l to r), number of league points (converted to 3pts a win) gained in the last 20 matches before departure, ditto for last 5 matches, s=sacked w=walked, first 5 for new manager, first 20, my assessment as to whether the new bloke was an improvement (+) or a disappointment (-).
After all that, I'm not sure if it proves anything.
New managers tend to make more of a positive than a negative impact.
Luck plays a part (Jezzard and Tigana both had improving squads ready to take-off in a lower league; Adams didn't have a high enough profile.)
Some of our direr managers started off quite well (although our direst didn't!)
No manager lasts for ever.
Loyalty is niether given nor received.
Jol's got a bit to do.
Welcome to the board Mr CMG sir, your first contribution is certainly more detailed and analytical than my one probably was!
I always equate Bobby Campbell being a disaster as he was really the first manager during my yoof years that the fan base turned on ("Campbell Out").
The stats would seem to back that up.
That is one proper debut as a poster. :clap_hands:
Well done!!
Now post another one so you lose the MJ classification.
COYW!!