Managers. Are they really that important?

[silverlining]

We're mired in another managerial debate on the Forums. Yet again.

 

And I bristled when Martinez was mentioned - for "masterminding" another season just out of the clutches of relegation - because it appeared that our criteria had slipped rather a lot from when Houllier's days were numbered - young, European success, proven domestic success blah blah blah buzzwords - and we secured probably the second most hightly sought-after young manager in world football, Benitez.

 

Now the criteria, if Martinez is a serious candidate for discussion, appears just to be "young". Because we have visions of this young managerial genius rebuilding the club from the ground up; changing our old, outmoded ways, refreshing our tactics and personnel; leading us into a bright new future; building a dynasty to rival that of Shankly and Paisley, to take back our crown from the crumbling empire of Ferguson.

 

We've tried this approach before. And we all know how Souness turned out.

 

And on the other hand, we have people saying that if we change managers again, we're no better than Newcastle. Or Chelsea. But that last club made me think.

 

Their roundabout of managerial changes hasn't really impacted that badly on the amount of trophies and finals they play in. One could certainly argue that they aren't the force they were under Mourinho, and I wouldn't argue with that. But that also reinforces my point.

 

Underneath the very, very top level of managers, who are extraordinarily rare - the likes of Mourinho, Ferguson, Guardiola, arguably Capello - who can be shown to have an amazing impact on a team, imparting a winning philosophy and belief, who are as close to a guarantee of titles as it is possible to have in football.....below that level.....does it really matter that much?

 

Clearly there's a world of difference between the likes of Hodgson and Mourinho, but given the league position we are in, has getting rid made that much difference? Really?

 

I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I wonder just what we are expecting any new manager to do with the players we have. Kenny's arrival gave everyone a lift for myriad reasons, but he hasn't been able to deliver a good season. What kind of miracle worker are we expecting?

 

Similarly, one looks at Pardew and Newcastle, and he's done a fabulous job and deserves credit, but if he was that good a manager, he wouldn't have been fired from his previous three clubs.

 

So how important and relevant is the role of manager? They always fuck up eventually. Sometimes they fuck up straight away. There are no guarantees and it's the players in a team and the team itself are the most important aspect.

 

My second point is this: why do we want to have a manager in charge for x years/ decades? Because Ferguson has done a fantastic job for so many years? The Boot Room Succession of the 70s and 80s?

 

Well, perhaps they're the exception. More of an anachronism than any viable strategy for us. Maybe the peripatetic career of the Mourinho's of this world is the norm. Pep himself wasn't going to last long at Barca, he said it often enough himself.

 

Discussions about Benitez's managerial style often hinted that he required fresh blood and new players in order to have the required impact, otherwise fatigue and decay set in. His style needs him to ship players in and out regularly. Or change clubs.

 

The other long-serving manager is Wenger - who has certainly had pressure in the last few years for the intransigence of his management approach and lack of trophies, guaranteed CL qualification notwithstanding.

 

And we all know what happened at Forest, when the success of Clough's early tenure allowed him total control. Of their slide into footballing oblivion.

 

So maybe we don't want or need someone to stay for 10 years. Perhaps it doesn't work these days.

 

And perhaps we are overstating the importance of the manager anyway. Because below that very top level; they all fail sooner or later, and don't appear to be able to build anything that succeeds for very long.

 

Are Chelsea or Real the model to follow? Buy the right players, buy great players, get them to play in a certain way and success will follow. Regardless of who is manager.

[fowler9]

its all about getting the right man at the right time depending on circumstances, Kenny was without doubt the man to get in to replace Roy for the remainder of that season and obviously did so well it was impossible not to give him the job but whether he is the right man for long term remains to be seen, We'll never be able to say but I think if Ferguson had ever left Scum and gone somewhere else I doubt he'd be able to do it all again, same with Guardiola now

[Guest The Chimp]

It's a good post and certainly gives pause for thought. I was only thinking before how much managers are paid, but really, good scouts are worth their weight in gold. A good manager and average scouts versus an average manager and good scouts, which would bring most success on average I wonder?

[Major Tom]

It's a good post and certainly gives pause for thought. I was only thinking before how much managers are paid, but really, good scouts are worth their weight in gold. A good manager and average scouts versus an average manager and good scouts, which would bring most success on average I wonder?

 

Dunno. Mourinho would appear to have average scouts - if some of his buys are anything to go by - but the impact he has on every club he lands at is unquestionable.

 

I think the top notch managers make a massive difference. But after that, I am not so sure.

[Bobby Hundreds]

For me the most important attribut of a manager isn't tactics or charisma its being able to spot a player. What was clough without Taylor the man who spotted the players. Knowing a player and what you need is most the battle won. Barring the odd few mistakes I think it's the reason for bacon faces success he knows a good player and he gets them. We have had a lot of managers who would sign players just for the sake of signing some fucker despite the fact their fucking wank and shouldn't be anywhere near the league.

[TheHowieLama]

Good teams develop and find/buy good players. Good players make good managers. Great managers make great players. Great players make great teams.

[Colonol]

Top managers are a rare breed and they do have an impact on teams but I doubt we can get one. Personally I'd rather we found world class scouts and coaches with a manager that was flexible and willing to work with them and not take too much control and have one philosophy/tactic with no plan b. With great scouts attracting the best young players and great coaches showing them what to do then the manager mainly needs to be flexible with his tactics and be motivational to the players. I see a manager has needing to be able to admit he is fallible and open to change. I'm tired of our managers sticking with a failed approach/players to the detriment of our team.

[The Dude Abides]

To think Kenny thought Downing a more suitable player for Liverpool than Juan Mata is galling and goes to show how out of touch Kenny is. £35m to spend on a striker, and he comes up with Carroll. His idea of a good young player ready to play 30+ games for Liverpool is Henderson. He clearly had no idea about European football, which is what you get when you hire someone so long out of the game.

 

So yes, managers are important.

[Guest davelfc]

To think Kenny thought Downing a more suitable player for Liverpool than Juan Mata is galling and goes to show how out of touch Kenny is. £35m to spend on a striker, and he comes up with Carroll. His idea of a good young player ready to play 30+ games for Liverpool is Henderson. He clearly had no idea about European football, which is what you get when you hire someone so long out of the game.

 

So yes, managers are important.

 

Doesn't matter a shit what the manager thinks when the player has decided he wants to go to another club. But don't let that get in the way of things eh?

[Evil_Ways]

I agree that a top manager will obviously make a big difference compared to an average one like with anything though, the hand has to fit the glove.

 

Mourinho though, he's no doubt good and his players seem to love playing for him. But he's had financial backing, and gone to clubs who's had quality players already in place wherever he's been since being at and leaving Porto, thus giving him pretty much free hands to put his stamp on the clubs he's managed.

That's not a critisism towards him as a manager, but he's worked under better circumstances than anyone else and certainly so the managers who's followed him.

 

Concerning Dalglish i think it's a matter of giving him the right players to work with, or him signing the right players, rather. Something he's either clearly not been given or done, depending on where that truth really lies.

His general idea of how he wants us to play is good i think. Possession based, pass and move football. We have dominated games this season against the best sides in this country, and done so with inadequate players but failed to kill them off, same thing against most sides in at least one of two games, our lack of points make people forget that, which i guess isnt wrong since it's the points that count in the end. But unless we can land Mourinho, Hiddink or Bielsa, or Rafa though i think it's too soon for him to come back. I would not think about changing managers for next season.

[Guest TK-421]

To think Kenny thought Downing a more suitable player for Liverpool than Juan Mata is galling and goes to show how out of touch Kenny is. £35m to spend on a striker, and he comes up with Carroll. His idea of a good young player ready to play 30+ games for Liverpool is Henderson. He clearly had no idea about European football, which is what you get when you hire someone so long out of the game.

 

So yes, managers are important.

 

Way to completely miss the point.

[Dicko]

It's an interesting question, and I suppose it has a lot to do with if the manager recruits well and if the players are able to take on board what the manager wants.

 

Some things are intangible others less so, for example for example for all of Hodgson's faults there was a marked difference between him and what we had seen under Rafa. That it was a retrograde step is irrelevant he got his ideas over quickly and our whole outlook and system mirrored his view of how the game should be played.

 

If you look at the differences between Houllier & Rafa the changes seemed more like evolution than revolution. Carra was brought into centre half and the whole team shifted 20 yards further forward and we passed it a bit more. Small changes but reaped massive rewards early on.

 

Later in his tenure not so much and certain players recruited were either unable (Pennant) or unwilling (Keane) to adapt to play the way the team required.

 

Obviously having the right people around you is vital, Houllier surrounded himself with Patrice Bergues, Alex Miller & Thompson. Rafa surrounded himself with Pako Ayesteran, Paco Herrera, Miller, Xavi Valero & Sammy Lee. Hodgson had Mike Kelly. Now there's an obvious gulf in class between the first two and the third, something Kenny seems to be trying to put right with Clarke and it can make all the difference. Pepe hasn't been the same since Kelly got hold of him for example.

 

Then you have to have the support from upstairs, decent judgment from the manager & good scouting. Since we last won the league there have been times when we've failed all three.

 

Souness could have signed Roy Keane from Forest but chose not to. Michel Platini offered Souness Cantona but he refused.

 

Roy Evans wanted us to sign Teddy Sheringham in 98 but was overruled by Parry & Robinson because the club policy was 26 & under, no exceptions.

 

Then we have some of the players Alex Miller scouted, again overruled by Parry as they were too expensive for youngsters, take a deep breath:

 

Christiano Ronaldo

Gonzalo Higuain

Arjen Robben

Petr Cech

Robin Van Persie

 

Given the dichotomy between management & board it's easy to see why Brendan or anyone for that matter would draw conclusions that at the end of the day there are so many variables that it becomes almost impossible to see where the lines of the manager start and everything else ends.

 

That said for the most part if a club get it right and he has the right personality to be able to cut through any bullshit and be ruthless enough when it matters, then I'd rather have one than not.

 

Some people have it some don't. To conclude I suppose it's fitting to use City as an example:

 

For all his, gold chains, cigars, allegedly futuristic training methods. Malcolm Allison didn't have it.

 

Joe Mercer certainly did.

[No2]

The example of Real Madrid and Chelsea is fundamentally flawed. They're proof that money is more valuable than managers. Great players can get by with Avrim Grant or Lawrie Sanchez managing them. The Man City team that will win the league would've won it or come very close with just about any of the current managers in the premier league, it's when you step down a level that managers really earn their money.

 

If you're asking if a manager can get us out of the shit we're in with a modest budget then I'd say the right one could.

[silverlining]

The example of Real Madrid and Chelsea is fundamentally flawed. They're proof that money is more valuable than managers. Great players can get by with Avrim Grant or Lawrie Sanchez managing them. The Man City team that will win the league would've won it or come very close with just about any of the current managers in the premier league, it's when you step down a level that managers really earn their money.

 

If you're asking if a manager can get us out of the shit we're in with a modest budget then I'd say the right one could.

 

Hmmm. Not so sure about that, and I do accept that money is certainly one of the most important factors, but Chelsea never won anything until they binned off Ranieri, and Grant won fuck all too.

 

I know I'm sort of arguing against my original post now, but to counter the issue of money, I included the example of Pardew and Newcastle. Is he now a brilliant manager? Look how he's transformed Newcastle!

 

As for your final point, I can't eally see anyone who could transform the shithouse mediocrities we have now with a "modest budget"

 

He'd have to be a fucking managerial/ motivational/ tactical genius of almost unparallelled dimensions.

[TheHowieLama]

I think that is the point - a squad pretty much finds its own level over the course of the season - the quality of the manager can change that by a couple of places/handful of points in either direction. The squad ends up being a collaborative effort amongst many departments at the club - we have had massive shortcomings in one or more of those departments for decades.

[xerxes]

A very good OP, Silverlining.

 

Managers are vital – the trick is matching the right skill set to the right opportunity.

 

Almost without exception, successful managerial appointments are also more about the skill and judgement in assessing what a manager might do next, rather than judging retrospectively on what managers have done already (Ferguson, Wenger, Dalglish 1st time, Fagan, Paisley, Shankly).

 

In business it is a given that managers often specialise in certain areas, reversing failing companies, expanding businesses, crisis management etc, yet in football we ask managers to be supermen who can do everything, unsurprisingly they cannot.

 

In this country we brand managers as generic failures far too readily. Rafa’s first two managerial jobs? He was appointed manager of Real Valladolid for the 1995–96 season but was sacked after only two wins in 23 games with the club bottom of the Primera División. During the 1996–97 season, Benítez took charge at Osasuna in the Segunda División but after only 9 games and one win he was sacked. In England he would have been unemployable after that.

 

Kenny’s track record here and at Blackburn make him a managerial great, recorded fact. However it is little surprise that a man who hasn’t been involved in the transfer market for over a decade (an entire generation of footballers) and has no personal network of scouts is floundering in the transfer market and that a man with no experience of managing abroad is struggling with 21st century football – that was not what he was bringing to the table.

 

You are right to say that the framework within which managers are working has become more important in recent years. In the past a manager could, in the style of Clough, Shanks, Lyall, Revie control everything at a club- now they are such monsters that a team is needed. At Chelsea, if the scouting has been done right, and the best players with the best attitude have been bought, and the players are coming to play with the best, for the best wages, for honours, the skills required to manage the club are very different to what Dave Jones has needed at Sheffield Wednesday, for instance.

 

You queried the credentials of Martinez. Who is to say what the likes of Martinez, Rodgers, Lambert and Coyle MIGHT achieve in the future? Valancia didn’t hold Rafa’s failures against him before appointing him? Nor did we hold Shankly's non-record before appointing him here against him.

 

What is important is a Board of Directors who know and understand football who are able to gauge effectively the risks and rewards which come with every appointment.

[silverlining]

A very good OP, Silverlining.

 

You queried the credentials of Martinez. Who is to say what the likes of Martinez, Rodgers, Lambert and Coyle MIGHT achieve in the future? Valancia didn’t hold Rafa’s failures against him before appointing him? Nor did we hold Shankly's non-record before appointing him here against him.

 

 

But that's the point. Below your "guaranteed success" managers, any appointment is a huge, huge risk, and in many cases we attribute too much importance to that appointment anyway.

 

I think we need to stop using words like "project" and "long-term" too. It's wishful-thinking and I think our perspective of what the words mean will differ radically from FSG's. I wonder if their's even has anything about football in it. Apart from "Champions League".

[No2]

Hmmm. Not so sure about that, and I do accept that money is certainly one of the most important factors, but Chelsea never won anything until they binned off Ranieri, and Grant won fuck all too.

 

I know I'm sort of arguing against my original post now, but to counter the issue of money, I included the example of Pardew and Newcastle. Is he now a brilliant manager? Look how he's transformed Newcastle!

 

As for your final point, I can't eally see anyone who could transform the shithouse mediocrities we have now with a "modest budget"

 

He'd have to be a fucking managerial/ motivational/ tactical genius of almost unparallelled dimensions.

 

Raneri had the first batch of money and bought many of the foundations of the Chelsea side that won the league (Lampard, Cech, Joe Cole, Duff, Makielle, Gallas, Robben), who's to say he wouldn't have won it himself with the money that was available the following summer? Grant got the CL final and came 2nd in the league despite being a puppet.

 

Alan Pardew is strange one, after he got sacked from Southampton in strange circumstances he spent his time in Germany "retraining" himself. Normally I'd lump Pardew into the category with Phil Brown, Paul Jewell and Steve Bruce, but seeing as he made the effort to engage his brain elsewhere I think he deserves some credit. He has certainly been impressive (although sometimes coming across as a smug cunt) in how he has handled himself this season, could be one to watch.

 

On your last point, the modest budget I was referring too was circa £20m per season. I'm different to many on here in that I don't think we're as far down the slide as some may think. A managers job is to improve the team, a good one with £20m available each year should be able to do that.

[TheHowieLama]

I wonder if their's even has anything about football in it.

 

I am not sure it needs to, the football "people" need to ensure that. As has been pointed out a million times they don't know anything about it. My hope is their long term plan is a competitive, successful (read profitable) well organized club off the field with the knowledge that will make us more likely to be all of those things on the field.

[silverlining]

Raneri had the first batch of money and bought many of the foundations of the Chelsea side that won the league (Lampard, Cech, Joe Cole, Duff, Makielle, Gallas, Robben), who's to say he wouldn't have won it himself with the money that was available the following summer? Grant got the CL final and came 2nd in the league despite being a puppet.

 

Alan Pardew is strange one, after he got sacked from Southampton in strange circumstances he spent his time in Germany "retraining" himself. Normally I'd lump Pardew into the category with Phil Brown, Paul Jewell and Steve Bruce, but seeing as he made the effort to engage his brain elsewhere I think he deserves some credit. He has certainly been impressive (although sometimes coming across as a smug cunt) in how he has handled himself this season, could be one to watch.

 

On your last point, the modest budget I was referring too was circa £20m per season. I'm different to many on here in that I don't think we're as far down the slide as some may think. A managers job is to improve the team, a good one with £20m available each year should be able to do that.

 

Haha! Sometimes? He's a prize cunt and unpopular for a very good reason.

 

As to your last point, "improve the team", well, maybe this is where I am really coming from. I don't want to "improve" the team. I want to win the title.

 

And unless we get a Mourinho in - and even if we did - we need money, LOTS of money to do so.

 

Because managers don't make that much difference anymore. Money does.

 

So if we can't get FSG to plough enough in - and all suggestions are that they won't - we are going to be battling it out for between 7th and 5th place - a lucky fourth MAYBE - for the foreseeable future.

 

And that's not good enough.

 

"Improve"? No. Losers improve and use that kind of language.

 

I want to win.

 

And we are so far away

[Bjornebye]

in answer to your original question SL, I dont know anymore, i quite simply dont fucking know. i dont even know if downing is better than babel.

[Ne Moe Imya]

This is a very interesting thread, so well done to the OP for raising the question.

 

For me, there are two major factors in the success of a team. The first, and more important one, is the amount of talent the players have, and is determined by scouting and recruiting. The second is the ability of a leader to get the most out of the talent those players have, whether by using tactics and formations, motivation, or what have you.

 

If you have a continental setup with a Director of Football who is responsible for the player analysis, scouting, and recruitment, then he is going to have the lion's share of the success or failure of the club on the pitch in his hands. If he brings in turds, then no amount of managerial genius is going to do better than get slightly-better-than-turd results.

 

If the manager is more along the lines of a traditional English manager, then he is responsible for everything and can obviously have a huge bearing on results.

 

The difficulty is in assessing blame/credit in our present situation, where from everything that's been said publicly Comolli and Dalglish worked together in recruitment. Who is responsible for the last 12 month's purchases of Carroll, Downing, et al? We don't know, but once those players were bought, it's Kenny's job to set the team up and to motivate them to get the best out of them.

 

I'm not saying it's all his fault, by any means, but when I see effort like we had for the first 65 minutes of an FA Cup final, for me some of that has to be on the manager. How can he allow unmotivated players to wear the shirt? When he sees it, how can he allow them come out after halftime and continue to play that way?

 

In the end, I think the primary driver of success is whoever is buying the players. If that's the manager, he can be hugely important. If it's not the manager, then the manager is of limited importance unless you're talking about the very best in the game. It takes a very skilled manager indeed to motivate and set up a team of lesser talents to win games.

[robslappa]

I think Managers are important, you only have to look at Chelsea's renaissance since John Terry took over from AVB.

[Ne Moe Imya]

As to your last point, "improve the team", well, maybe this is where I am really coming from. I don't want to "improve" the team. I want to win the title.

 

I cannot agree strongly enough with this.

 

People saying things like "Let's bring in Dempsey; he's better than what we have so we will improve the team with him" drive me insane. Yes, he's marginally better than Kuyt or Maxi, but he's not going to be the kind of player we need to win the league, is he?

 

If we want to finish 5th or 6th next season and call it an "improvement," then by all means, let's buy the likes of Dempsey. If we want to win the league in the next two or three years, or at least challenge, we need to be aiming higher.

[Major Tom]

I think Managers are important, you only have to look at Chelsea's renaissance since John Terry took over from AVB.

 

I laughed.