• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

How good are managers?

Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2003
Posts
1,652
Location
I Freed Fishfingers 13/08
I was talking to Fishfingers about achievements of managers in football and how important to the team the manager was.

He jokingly said that Darren Ferguson was better then his dad because SAF has never won back to back promotions and I said that's because he's never had to.

I think personally that SAF's Cup Winners Cup Win with Aberdeen is a huge achievement and also the season before where he won the Scottish League.

Fishfingers said if he's so good then could he could take Luxembourg to be World Cup winners? I said no, but they'd do a significant amount better if he was their manager rather then their current manager.

So there lies the queston - how much does the manager have to do with the teams results. I say a lot, he says not too much
 
But no matter who the manager of Luxembourg is they will not drastically improve their results, in this case the whole is not better than the sum of its parts. You cant go from winning 1 game out of 30 to winning 12-15 games out of 30, impossible.
 
The best way to see the impact a good manager can have is to look at a successful team that was recently under-performing under a previous manager.

In International management, you have a somewhat limited choice of players so it's about improving those players and getting the most you can out of possibly limited ability. I'm sure Ferguson could get Luxembourg playing strongly defensivaly and maybe counter-attacking and get lots of draws and the odd win.

In club football, the margins at the top clubs are really narrow now so it's about having retaining motivation and standards and having ideas to squeeze that extra 1% out more than anyone else. You could look at it like only 2 or 3 teams are going to win so you have a 1 in 3 chance but Ferguson was there before they were at that level so had to do the hard stuff as well to make that the standard expected of the club.
 
Well if you look at a team like Fulham, Everton or Villa you will see they have very good managers. All capable of finishing in European position in the league and giving the top four a run for there money in games (see Fulham 2 - 0 Man Utd, Villa 2 - 1 Chelsea). These kind of results and finishing league position are fundamentally down to the managers, in my opinion.

Villa and Fulham are very good examples because they werent doing great before there new manger came in.

Sanchez at Fulham was finishing in the bottom half of the table, with few good transfers and seemed a very mediocre team. Now Hodgson has come in, he's saved them from relegation in his first season, took them to 7th the next and was many people choice for manager of the season. This scenario clearly shows how a good manager can get the most out of a relatively mediocre team.

Another example is if you look at Chelseas situation. Bags of money, bags of star players, always expect them to win. Most fans think that they could win the league as Chelsea manager. Scolari couldn't.

This, in my opinion, shows the difference a good manager and a great manager can make. Chelsea were playing some of the worst football i've seen them play for years under Scolari. However, when Hiddink, a world class manager came in, its no surprise that he got them playing football how that team should be playing football.

So, in my opinion, the manager has a fundamental role in the way the team plays and the results they get.
 
I think it's different domestically then internationally, because if you're Hull for example, you know you can try to get players in each transfer windows to consolidate your position and strengthen. If you're Luxembourg you don't have that luxury.

I think if a top manager went to a very minor nation, they would have more impact in the long term with getting some academies set up and getting investment for sports in school etc.

If i look at Luxembourgs last 20 competative matches, they have won 1 and lost 19, scoring 3 goals and conceding 56. I'd say if a manager was to make them win 2 or 3 , draw 2 or 3 and lose the rest he would have made a significant difference to the team.
 
I think different managers have slightly different skillsets and thus suit different situations:

-Some have a great eye for talent and have success in the transfer market (Wenger)
-Some are very well liked for day-to-day coaching (Venables)
-Some are master tacticians (Hiddink)
-Some are very good at man-management and getting the best out of their players (O'Neill?)
etc

So take Wenger for example, one of his greatest strengths would be largely wasted a club like Madrid with a huge transfer budget (no need or patience to unearth gems) who often buy players behind the manager's back. Likewise a manager who is strong tactically is well suited to international management but may not necessarily spend money wisely in the club transfer market.

So horses for courses in a sense, although obviously the best managers have a range of skills and will suceed in different situations.
 
Chelsea were playing some of the worst football i've seen them play for years under Scolari. However, when Hiddink, a world class manager came in, its no surprise that he got them playing football how that team should be playing football.

So, in my opinion, the manager has a fundamental role in the way the team plays and the results they get.

Chelsea were missing Drogba and Essien who came back almost the exact same time Hiddink came in and both were hugely involved in the upturn in performances. Its impossible to say what would have happened under Scolari when two of maybe the best 4-5 players in the team came back. Essien and Drogba both scored crucial goals in key games. Scolari hardly had them bottom half of the table, he had them right up in the fight for the top 3 the whole way and was never far off.

Hiddink also had a certain winger called Malouda finally wanting a new contract so decided to pretend to be a footballer.

Likewise, as much as I think Hodgeson did great, he had Bullard and McBride back fit after he joined, and again they were instrumental, between them scoring almost all the goals that kept them up. Sanchez was poor but he was missing the clubs two clear best players who made a huge change when they came back in.

The next year, well Fulham made the most transfers that year didn't they? Budget players, great deals for sure, but he replaced the majority of the starting 11 and a large portion of the backups aswell. He didn't get to 7th with the squad Sanchez almost had relegated, not even close.


Quantifying how good a manager is, well, very very very difficult. Because for everything that could be down to them, theres 8 other things that could have caused a turn around for the better/worse for the team.

Then it gets harder, Wenger has this reputation for training kiddies to be great, but other than Wilshire, virtually no one thats been in the Arsenal starting 11 for the past, 8 years, has trained and become good at Arsenal, almost all have been bought in ready to go into the team, being young is a coincidence. We have FAR more potential stars who go on to be fairly poor, than potential stars who have made it. I'm not having a go at Wenger before anyone has a go at me, I'm just saying he has this reputation for taking kids and turning them into stars, but the reality is he's almost never done this. Buying incredibly undervalue young players is what he's good at, but they've all come in as the mostly finished article.

The reality and the reputation rarely match at all, which just makes quantifying how good a manager is even harder.

Guardiola has done absolutely fantastically this year, but then, he inherited the best squad in the world and Real Madrid imploded at the same time, how good really is he? Who the hell knows.
 
Last edited:
But no matter who the manager of Luxembourg is they will not drastically improve their results, in this case the whole is not better than the sum of its parts. You cant go from winning 1 game out of 30 to winning 12-15 games out of 30, impossible.

Why? Look what happened to Spurs at the start of last season with a change in manager. For that matter, look what happened to Portsmouth after Harry Redknap left.
 
Managers like Guardiola (sp?) can't be classed as being good... yet.

a lot of manager are overrated but there are geniune manager that are good at their jobs regardless of funds or players...

Alex Ferguson is obviously a great manager, he hasn't always had money and world class players yet he has sustained a winning team for years and years.

I think Moyes is a great manager too because he seems to be able to over perform year in year out.

Managers that do it for years can be called good managers and worth their money...

But I do think people talk of tactics and formations a bit too much sometimes.. there is only so much you can do with a set team and any manager in the world will probably not be able to turn talentless players into a winning team, they will be able to slowly improve but not over night.

You get people banging on about their managers didn't make this sub or didn't play this formation or style, at the end of the day if they don't have the talent to do it within the squad they can't do anything and just hope for the best that their team will play above themselves
 
Why? Look what happened to Spurs at the start of last season with a change in manager. For that matter, look what happened to Portsmouth after Harry Redknap left.

Redknapp is a good manager...

But spurs got better because they had an english speaking manager with them and a lot of portsmouth players lost heart when redknapp left... They were looking for the exit door too
 
Then it gets harder, Wenger has this reputation for training kiddies to be great, but other than Wilshire, virtually no one thats been in the Arsenal starting 11 for the past, 8 years, has trained and become good at Arsenal, almost all have been bought in ready to go into the team, being young is a coincidence. We have FAR more potential stars who go on to be fairly poor, than potential stars who have made it. I'm not having a go at Wenger before anyone has a go at me, I'm just saying he has this reputation for taking kids and turning them into stars, but the reality is he's almost never done this. Buying incredibly undervalue young players is what he's good at, but they've all come in as the mostly finished article.

Right, so Fabregas, Anelka, Toure, Henry, Clichy, even Viera were the finished article? Get on your bike! Wenger is world renowed for bringing in good young players and taking them to the next level. Give the man credit for that. I know you hate Arsenal and Wenger, but when you start talking rubbish like that against the opinion of the footballing world you just make a fool out of yourself.
 
Last edited:
Right, so Fabregas, Anelka, Toure, Henry, Clichy, even Viera were the finished article? Get on your birke? Wenger is world renowed for bringing in good young players and taking them to the next level. Give the man credit for that. I know you hate Arsenal and Wenger, but when you start talking rubbish like that against the opinion of the footballing world you just make a fool out of yourself.

Adebayor, Song, RvP, Denilson, Walcott (not there yet), Vela (not there yet) all improved loads under Wenger and there's so many more too. DM's post was about as far from the truth as reality is, Wenger's best attribute is arguably improving players.
 
Adebayor, Song, RvP, Denilson, Walcott (not there yet), Vela (not there yet) all improved loads under Wenger and there's so many more too. DM's post was about as far from the truth as reality is, Wenger's best attribute is arguably improving players.

Vela hadn't spent any time at Arsenal being trained under Wenger before he was a first team regular for his country and while on loan in Spain, Wenger didn't train him at all during the time he went from a youth player to a starting international player.

Most players improve slightly as they play more, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.

Fabregas came to Arsenal and was a starting player almost straight away, there was no 3 years of training under a great manager before he was good enough, he was good enough when he got here. Adebayor walked into the first team, wasn't particularly young and didn't noticably improve. Song again, we didn't get very young and hasn't improved much at all. RVP was quality when we signed him, the difference between him now, and 4 years ago, is injuries or lack thereof, he was brilliant when he got here and started games straight away. Walcott hasn't improved an iota from the player we signed.

If you READ WHAT I SAID, theres a HUGE difference between taking a player whose one level, not ready for first team action, spend 3 years turning said player around and making them world class. People like Scholes, GIggs, Neville's, etc, were at a single club from a young age, and became great players. We bought almost everyone we've played in the first team in the past 8 years and very very few of them weren't good enough for the first team when we bought them, pretending anything else is ridiculous.


Wenger's reknowned for buying youngsters and being willing to start them, NOT at all for buying youngsters who aren't great and making them great players. AS I said, Wilshire is really the ONLY player whose spent several years learning under Wenger before becoming a contender for the first team.

If you can't tell that Wenger hasn't bought almost everyone at first team level you're beyond blind. CLichy was rated when we bought him aswell, he didn't improve massively, he was just injured for the best part of 18 months and had Cole infront of him. Fabregas walked into the first team, as did Henry and Vieira.

If you can name a bunch of youth players he trained and brought into the first team, go ahead.

Maybe you should come up with two lists, youngsters bought who have made it into the Arsenal first team, and youngsters we've got who we've shipped out for not being good enough who spent several years if not the best part of the decade at the club with Arsenal in charge, because that list is becoming embarassingly long. Infact when you look at our reserves over the past decade, almost no one has made it into the first team, with very few of the longer term players in the current reserves looking close to getting a chance, most are decidedly average.

Wengers done very well in buying established and already 98% finished article young players in, but his history of buying lots of potentially great players that need more than a few months before being ready for the first team, is abysmal.
 
Last edited:
I think this has gone off the point a little bit as this was meant more for small international teams where managers can't rely on money and don't have quality players coming out of their ears.

In terms of making low quality players better, the manager and his coaching staff are paramount for this.
 
Song again, we didn't get very young and hasn't improved much at all.

You're pointless, you say whatever you like regardless of the truth. I have no idea how you can say such things without breaking out in laughter at yourself. Do you even watch Arsenal?
 
Song made 5 appearances in the 2005–2006 season, and is only 22. If my maths doesn't deceive me that's still means he came to us as a teenager. He is vastly improved from when he joined, to suggest otherwise is more than a little odd.
 
He is vastly improved from when he joined, to suggest otherwise is more than a little odd.

You do realise your talking to DM? Did you not realise Wenger is a buffoon that doesn't know the difference between his ass and his elbow?

Also, just look at the difference of England between the McLaughingstock time, and the Capello time. I think that shows all you need to see.
 
Why? Look what happened to Spurs at the start of last season with a change in manager. For that matter, look what happened to Portsmouth after Harry Redknap left.

But Spurs had a strong team to begin with that where simply massively under performing, you cant possible say Luxembourg with the right manager will have a chance of making it into European and World Cup finals and they just need a kick up the backside. No matter how good the manager, Luxembourg dont have the players to mount any sort of challenge, even if they did get Harry Redknapp in charge.
 
Back
Top Bottom