Management

[TonyGilroy]

I caught the last 15 minutes of the Liverpool v Wolves game.

A truly dreadful performance from Liverpool but Andy Gray et al were adamant that none of the blame lay with Hodgson. He'd inherited a bad situation, the players must stand up and be men. Hodgson was a good manager because he'd done a magnificent job at Fulham.

So. Fulham's success was down to his management but Liverpool's failure is the fault of the players.

It basically got me wondering if managers get too much praise and blame. How much of a teams' success or failure is down to them? Is there a period of time they need to be at the helm before they should be rated? Are they mostly just nominal leaders who keep their jobs until the team does badly enough for them to be sacked.

[White Noise]

It is ridiculous that they have a sell by date like pop stars and bacon.

How can someone be managing in The Prem for a while and then not be able to get a job anywhere? Look at Peter Taylor - or the lengthy travails of Steve Coppell over his managerial career. Surely you are either good or not good enough - or does football coaching and management really evolve so quickly that managers are soon behind the times. Owners obviously take the view that they don't care if you are good - just do you win games - look at Gary Megson - fans hate him but he gets the job done.

Can there be any other profession with such a high attrition rate?

[White Noise]

One man who has hung in there is Micky Adams - but £65k?? - I didn't really the rewards were so much lower at that level.


Sheffield United set to quadruple Micky Adams wages in bid to lure him from Port Vale

By Sportsmail Reporter

Last updated at 11:11 PM on 29th December 2010


Micky Adams, front-runner for the Sheffield United manager's job, is on the brink of a huge salary increase.

Adams is understood to be paid just £65,000 a year at Port Vale where he has relaunched his career in the last 19 months after winning promotions with Fulham, Brighton and Leicester.

If he gets the nod ahead of Phil Brown, Paul Hart and Brentford's Andy Scott, Adams can expect around four times his current salary.



He has been interviewed twice by the Blades board and his current pay seems to make a mockery of Vale's threatened £500,000 compensation claim.

Settling with the League Two promotion-seekers is unlikely to prove a stumbling block, although United appear to be sticking to their plan of delaying an appointment until the New Year.

Caretaker John Carver is expected to remain in charge at Burnley on Saturday.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1342525/Sheffield-United-set-quadruple-Micky-Adams-wages-bid-lure-Port-Vale.html#ixzz19aG9LMkO

[MJG]

I think a lot of managers are pretty much run of the mill, the training is the same as maybe 80% of the rest of the league, the tactics the same,the team talks the same.

But some have something which shows they get something extra out of players that other managers can not.
The biggest turn around in how players can up there game and improve was Tigana...he took average players and gave them the ability to show footballing skill we never thought some of them had. This for me was the first time I ever really saw a fulham manager make such a dramatic change in the players(not tactics or formations which he did as well).
Someone like Bracewell was the kind of manager I menetioned in the first part of this post, yes he got players in who proved their worth but he was a shambles as a manager tactics wise.

Look at the two who got sacked yesterday Laws & Fergies son. Laws has a decent record but he does not exactly pull up trees and as I saw one fan say yesterday its gone from Coyles passing game to long ball hoof. and slightly off subject that is my worry about Hughes, with limited funds and the type of players he may bring in I suspect if he stays long enough thats the kind of team we will end up with.

Managers are the most important part of team (not club thats the board) and they will get booed or cheered depending on how things go, the buck stops with them. Its one the reasons when a manager is sacked I look to see what the fans say, they watch the team week in week out and can see the tactics, the players who are not being picked, the subs etc. Fans can't be fooled in the long run, if the team is crap 9/10 its down to the manager.

Whe Coleman got sacked the press went mad and said how could that happen, but I do believe that most fans know it was possibly up to year later than it should have been, and I eneded up having corespondance with Bill Bradshaw of the express about how some media dont really look at the background about why a manager is sacked but just the fact that a media fav has gone.

I suspect their are possibly maybe 15-20 manager at any one time who will get job after job and the rest move onto maybe 2 jobs but then fade away.

[Burt]

Hogson's management philosophy or competence has not changed overnight.

People just need to accept that he is not going to be a successful "Big 4" manager.

He found his sweet-spot with us - low expectations, low budget, selling club, not many big-name primadonas, etc. It is in this sort of environment that he thrives.

[Lighthouse]

Many of us said it is Horses for Courses  :dead horse:  Roy is a fine manager but has not been as succesful in buying big players for big clubs. He has a style of play which was always going to puzzle the fans at Liverpool who expect their team to cross the half way line and put pressure on the opposition. But he involves himself in training and coaching.

Hughes is a manager who sits on the edge of training and like other managers suggests the sort of player the club needs. I suppose he has the input of tactics for the club. But as I suggested in another thread some days ago when it was written that Fulham will have deals in place and to chase even if Hughes were to leave. Some managers seem to be there to take the blame and thats about all. Roy was hands on but really not the sort of manager Liverpool needed.

[LBNo11]

...I've always been told that because the managers see the players on the training pitches day in- day-out they are better judges of players strengths and weaknesses.

Managers have opinions that others may disagree with but say nothing and may have tactics that the players don't comprehend or cannot fulfill. Certain players respond to certain managers in different ways, some positively, some negatively.

Everyone has their own opinions in football, as in life - it doesn't mean they are right - or wrong, the proof is in the results...

[Lighthouse]

...I've always been told that because the managers see the players on the training pitches day in- day-out they are better judges of players strengths and weaknesses.

Managers have opinions that others may disagree with but say nothing and may have tactics that the players don't comprehend or cannot fulfill. Certain players respond to certain managers in different ways, some positively, some negatively.

Everyone has their own opinions in football, as in life - it doesn't mean they are right - or wrong, the proof is in the results...

How true. In my life I am going for a goalless draw.

[HatterDon]

There are two basic problems with managers of sports teams:

1. They are accessable on a daily basis to the working press and broadcast media. For this reason, they are able to package their own personality and create a coterie of acolytes in a room full of what should be disinterested observers. Inevitably, a charming manager whose teams seem to be good citizens can be turned into a cult. As a result, their weaknessess become ignored and their failings become someone else's.

2. They all seem to suffer from cronyism. They have small groups of assistants about them that are there more often because they are not a perceived threat than because they have something significant to contribute. This cronyism can also perculate down to players. A new manager won't trust his predecessor's staff, so why should he trust the players the previous manager did. Many a good player has been buried by a new manager. The good ones -- Clint Dempsey -- gird their loins and fight their way back, but a lot of players lose seasons and even careers because the boss thinks that "their faces don't fit." [Cronyism lives elsewhere, it's true. When I had my own small consulting business, I created a ton of good will in my clients -- all of whom, of course, were prospective employers. When I moved back into corporate America, it was because my soon-to-be-VP considered me to be "one of her troops."]

Years ago there was a pointy football coach named Jake Gaither. His school, Florida A&M was a powerhouse among the predominately black schools before most state schools in the south were integrated. He was often compared to Paul "Bear" Bryant, who coached at segregated Texas A&M and, later, segregated Alabama. When asked to compare himself with Bryant, Gaither said, "He can not only beat your teams with his players; he can beat his teams with your players." Maybe, but there's not that many around. In football, the "top managers" who I thought were a significant cut above the others are Sir Alex and The Special One, and this is pretty much predicated on their man management ability.

Sorry, I get wordy when I can't sleep.

[epsomraver]

I am sure personalities come into it as well, as we all know either as a boss or a worker, everybody has their favourites and some people you can take to and some you cannot. I am sure this was the case with Hodgson  Kamara and Bullard, It has been very obvious over the years that some players get the nod over others and the fans cannot understand why.

[finnster01]

I think another factor that shouldn't be underestimated is that managers are in general are extremely stubborn and bent on their own ways. They all insists on playing their own style of football. Very often (as at Fulham and Liverpool) the players inherited do not fit the managers style. As Hangeland has pointed out several times, it takes time to adapt to the new manager.

Since football is a business and not a sport anymore, managers are not given enough time to be successful. So you either have to develop thick skin and be prepared to be unemployed for long spats or do what The Special One does better than anyone in the game, adapt a style that suits the players around you, i.e. play the cards that are dealt you. As much as I hate to admit it, he is an instant success wherever he goes, and if you look at his teams Porto/Chelsea/Inter/Real they all play/played very different styles

[jarv]

The blame does not rest with RH. Neither does the blame for Fulham's position rest with MH. Ultimately, I believe it is the players. We can all see when players are not giving everything on the pitch, from youth level to the premier division. Example, last few days Hammers and Stoke, performances were night and day.
What did MH say? My guess is "get out there and bloody well stand up to them".
One of Alf Ramsays talks apparently used to be "you are better than them, go out and beat them"
The top managers are easy to identify (so few of them), as are the poor ones. All others are quite similar, (they all use the same quotes don't they?).

[HatterDon]

The blame does not rest with RH. Neither does the blame for Fulham's position rest with MH. Ultimately, I believe it is the players. We can all see when players are not giving everything on the pitch, from youth level to the premier division. Example, last few days Hammers and Stoke, performances were night and day.
What did MH say? My guess is "get out there and bloody well stand up to them".
One of Alf Ramsays talks apparently used to be "you are better than them, go out and beat them"
The top managers are easy to identify (so few of them), as are the poor ones. All others are quite similar, (they all use the same quotes don't they?).

Which reminds me of my favorite story about the Earl of Baltimore. Earl Weaver was a Damien Duff-sized character with a huge heart and a huge ego. He was very successful as manager of the Baltimore Orioles of the 1970s. Just after a game in which the team underperformed, Weaver got angrier and angrier and began jumping up and down to express his ire. Star pitcher Jim Palmer reacted by saying in a loud voice, "Earl, I've never seen you so tall."

[NogoodBoyo]

Management is so simple.  It's about:-
- setting a long-term strategic plan that your team understands and buys into but that is not visible to the enemy
- getting the structure and personnel in place to execute the plan (including having to work with your predecessors' journeymen and stars)
- motivating the whole team (from top to bottom/above and below) to get them to buy into the organisation's goals and to understand where they stand regarding their objectives
- obtaining information on your enemies positions, plans, morale and capabilities
- devising a set of short-term tactical plans that can be changed on a daily basis BUT that always fit the strategic imperatives
- creating a culture of success
This takes time, intelligence, the ability to calculate and take risks, a persuasive/articulate nature, high energy levels and extreme persistence.
Nogood "sod that for a game of soldiers, eh" Boyo 

[Jimbobob]

Management is so simple.  It's about:-
- setting a long-term strategic plan that your team understands and buys into but that is not visible to the enemy
- getting the structure and personnel in place to execute the plan (including having to work with your predecessors' journeymen and stars)
- motivating the whole team (from top to bottom/above and below) to get them to buy into the organisation's goals and to understand where they stand regarding their objectives
- obtaining information on your enemies positions, plans, morale and capabilities
- devising a set of short-term tactical plans that can be changed on a daily basis BUT that always fit the strategic imperatives
- creating a culture of success
This takes time, intelligence, the ability to calculate and take risks, a persuasive/articulate nature, high energy levels and extreme persistence.
Nogood "sod that for a game of soldiers, eh" Boyo 

Excellent statement but far from "simple"...that is why there are so few great managers/leaders at any level of sport, industry, goverment etc...
Regardless you have to have talent as well no matter how good the manager is.

[alfie]

The blame does not rest with RH. Neither does the blame for Fulham's position rest with MH. Ultimately, I believe it is the players. We can all see when players are not giving everything on the pitch, from youth level to the premier division. Example, last few days Hammers and Stoke, performances were night and day.
What did MH say? My guess is "get out there and bloody well stand up to them".
One of Alf Ramsays talks apparently used to be "you are better than them, go out and beat them"
The top managers are easy to identify (so few of them), as are the poor ones. All others are quite similar, (they all use the same quotes don't they?).

If anyone watched Lpool last night they would have seen a "World class player" showing that he could not care less about liverpool hodgson or anything else, Torres is his name, and if i was a liverpool supporter i would be ashamed that he was in the team. Then you have the Gerrards of this world ok bit out of form, but by god he gives everything to his team, and i hate to say it but John Terry's the same.(sorry)

[Pata]

Jacob Steinberg wrote a very blunt summary today of Hodgson's time at Liverpool so far
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/30/five-things-learned-premier-league

Regarding a couple of other points raised in this thread:
1. Torres. He's been very indifferent but I think a major factor in him losing interest earlier in the season were the tactics whereby he ended up up front totally isolated on his own with midfielders whacking balls in his general direction whilst he was being kicked by 2-3 defenders.
2. The style of football. See above plus key things like training. Jonathan Wilson made a point about this early on - the fact that his training sessions are notoriously repetitive and frankly boring, which the players at Liverpool could well find difficult to adapt to and learn from.

And some nice stats
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/12/30/roy-hodgson-s-record-at-liverpool-fc-the-statistics-so-far-100252-27908002/