What makes a good manager?

[superfaisty]

So with all the threads on avb and TS and spurs next manager, it got me thinking what attributes make fir a good manager, and what should levy be looking for?

Non footballer or ex footballer? Foreign or british basd? Experienced or inexperiencd? man manager or tactical? Adaptable or with a developed style if play?

Is there even such a thing as commin traits if a good manager- and are some traits more important than others?

 

[Raziel]

Question might more importantly be "what makes a good manager for Spurs"

 

[Cochise]

Not being called Tim

 

[Neymar]

i think "tactical" is probably the most overrated aspects when distinguishing elite modern day managers. I'm not saying that the tactical aspect of the game is not important, but I just don't think its as important factor as many in the media make it out to be.

when you go through the premier league tables of previous seasons, the thing is every clubs generally finish reletive to the money they spend. This leads me to think that the difference in the "tactical" aspect of the game between teams and managers is way overplayed by the media.

also when we look at the "tactical genius" that is mourinho; is there really much genius invovled when he subs off a 200k p/w striker who's strength is height for another 200k p/w striker who is smaller and more mobile, when the opposition defender is a 50k p/w defender who isnt the quickest? basically, my point is that mourinho usually outwits his teams not because of his tactical nouse, but more due to the fact that his teams cost more. and this is misinterpretted by the media as mourinho being tactically sharp.

i think the real genius in football management comes in the ability of the manager to get the club operating financially at the highest level possible. This is obviously not just the task of the manager, but those above him too. And by getting the club to operate at a higher level, a higher league position will naturally follow. And because of this, if i were to select a manager for us, i would want someone with as many similarities to wenger.

 

[Cochise]

I'd say that every one of the managers at the top 5 clubs have a great deal of tactical accumen.

It doesn't matter how expensive the players are, a coach still has to communicate to them how to play efficiently in a system in order to win. Good players may be able to improvise and create goals without a gameplan, but against the very best, a well thought out system is needed for the talented players to fall back on.

 

[Neymar]

I'd say that every one of the managers at the top 5 clubs have a great deal of tactical accumen.

It doesn't matter how expensive the players are, a coach still has to communicate to them how to play efficiently in a system in order to win. Good players may be able to improvise and create goals without a gameplan, but against the very best, a well thought out system is needed for the talented players to fall back on.

i agree that to be a good manager a lot of tactical accumen is needed. but i feel basically every manager in the premier league is a good manager and hence all have a good tactical understanding of the game. Thats why their finishing position in the league is separated by money spent rather than the level of tactical accumen of the managers.

I think its incorrect to say stuff like "x is a tactical genius, whilst y doesn't understand tactics, hence why y didnt win the league". in these types of cases, usually x has outspent y.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Four things for me. Someone who:

1) Can set direction (i.e. has a philosophy/vision)
2) Can engage commitment (in their vision)
3) Can adapt to complexity
4) Is authentic/has integrity

 

[Cochise]

i agree that to be a good manager a lot of tactical accumen is needed. but i feel basically every manager in the premier league is a good manager and hence all have a good tactical understanding of the game. Thats why their finishing position in the league is separated by money spent rather than the level of tactical accumen of the managers.

I think its incorrect to say stuff like "x is a tactical genius, whilst y doesn't understand tactics, hence why y didnt win the league". in these types of cases, usually x has outspent y.

Except that with regards to money, we are behind Everton whilst Liverpool have jumped ahead of both the billionaires. Yes Liverpool have spent money but not on the same scale and then of course you have Man UTD who have outspent all but the aforementionned billionaires.

 

[Neymar]

Except that with regards to money, we are behind Everton whilst Liverpool have jumped ahead of both the billionaires. Yes Liverpool have spent money but not on the same scale and then of course you have Man UTD who have outspent all but the aforementionned billionaires.

yes but this is just over one season. despite what pundits say, you don't neccessarily finish where you "deserve" after 38 games (depending on your defnition of "deserves"). If you look at it over a number of years, teams basically finish relative to their spending potential.

 

[Neymar]

in the short term (i would consider a whole year short term), theres enough variance in football for teams to finish above or below how much they have spent, or "where they deserve". however, over the course of say 5 years, your average position will be very close to "where you deserve".

City/Chelsea have spent the most money. hence, these teams are probably ranked as the two best teams in the premier league. Manu are the next highest spenders. They are probably rated as the third best team in the epl. Next highest rated is probably arsenal. And guess what? they are the 4th highest spenders (although i do accept you could argue that liverpool have spent marginal more or as much as them). after liverpool, we're probably rated as the next best team. And yep, you've guessed it . We've spent more than all those teams below us and not as much as those above us.

 

[ess]

Except that with regards to money, we are behind Everton whilst Liverpool have jumped ahead of both the billionaires. Yes Liverpool have spent money but not on the same scale and then of course you have Man UTD who have outspent all but the aforementionned billionaires.

Which proves the point that getting the most out of each player is what makes a good manager. That is what Rodgers has done brilliantly, I'm willing to bet that several of his current players never will play as well as they have this season. Getting the most out of your players is down to many factors, obviously including tactics, vision and man management.

Regarding the neccessity of having played football at a high level; many managers have proven that it's not a neccessity - and many players have proven that a good player doesn't make a good manager. Not every footballer knows why they're good at football, they just are. They don't understand why their team is winning or losing. Others do. They got the understanding of tactics, but you also need certain personality attributes to succeed, at least at the highest level.

 

[Neymar]

Regarding the neccessity of having played football at a high level; many managers have proven that it's not a neccessity - and many players have proven that a good player doesn't make a good manager. Not every footballer knows why they're good at football, they just are. They don't understand why their team is winning or losing. Others do. .

All true. however a disproportionately large number of non-players have no clue regarding football

 

[THFC84]

i think "tactical" is probably the most overrated aspects when distinguishing elite modern day managers. I'm not saying that the tactical aspect of the game is not important, but I just don't think its as important factor as many in the media make it out to be.

when you go through the premier league tables of previous seasons, the thing is every clubs generally finish reletive to the money they spend. This leads me to think that the difference in the "tactical" aspect of the game between teams and managers is way overplayed by the media.

also when we look at the "tactical genius" that is mourinho; is there really much genius invovled when he subs off a 200k p/w striker who's strength is height for another 200k p/w striker who is smaller and more mobile, when the opposition defender is a 50k p/w defender who isnt the quickest? basically, my point is that mourinho usually outwits his teams not because of his tactical nouse, but more due to the fact that his teams cost more. and this is misinterpretted by the media as mourinho being tactically sharp.

i think the real genius in football management comes in the ability of the manager to get the club operating financially at the highest level possible. This is obviously not just the task of the manager, but those above him too. And by getting the club to operate at a higher level, a higher league position will naturally follow. And because of this, if i were to select a manager for us, i would want someone with as many similarities to wenger.

Disagree with this look at Pulis at Palace. He has completely transformed them into one of the toughest teams to beat in the league. They are a lot harder to beat than us that's for sure.

 

[diego_maradona]

I'm telling you. If all else fails get Pulis in. Because if we can't make it work with a LVG calibre coach let's just get someone who knows how to organise

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Just. Win. Baby.

 

[SteveAWOL]

yes but this is just over one season. despite what pundits say, you don't neccessarily finish where you "deserve" after 38 games (depending on your defnition of "deserves"). If you look at it over a number of years, teams basically finish relative to their spending potential.

I'm not sure that's quite true...

Between 2000 and 2012 Chelsea had the biggest wage bill 9 times and spent the most on transfers in 6 but only managed to win the league title in 3 out of those 12 seasons.
Over the same period Man Utd (under Fergie) had the biggest wage bill just twice and spent the most on transfers once but still won 6 titles.
Emirates Marketing Project have spent by far the most over the past 5 years but have won the league just the once, well it looks like they've blown the chance to double that tally this season despite Pelligrini having a squad at his disposal which should've coasted to the league if they only didn't keep on dropping points to the bottom 4 #-o
Everton are barely in the league' top 10 spenders but invariably manage to finish in the top 7, with Aston Villa doing the opposite.
It's only really ARSEnal who have consistently finished pretty much where they should relative to their spending over the past 5 years, with us and Liverpool swapping positions.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/393373994595807232/photo/1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...elsea-Manchester-United-net-spend-charts.html

 

[Neymar]

I'm not sure that's quite true...

Between 2000 and 2012 Chelsea had the biggest wage bill 9 times and spent the most on transfers in 6 but only managed to win the league title in 3 out of those 12 seasons.
Over the same period Man Utd (under Fergie) had the biggest wage bill just twice and spent the most on transfers once but still won 6 titles.
Emirates Marketing Project have spent by far the most over the past 5 years but have won the league just the once, well it looks like they've blown the chance to double that tally this season despite Pelligrini having a squad at his disposal which should've coasted to the league if they only didn't keep on dropping points to the bottom 4 #-o
Everton are barely in the league' top 10 spenders but invariably manage to finish in the top 7, with Aston Villa doing the opposite.
It's only really ARSEnal who have consistently finished pretty much where they should relative to their spending over the past 5 years, with us and Liverpool swapping positions.

re the the likes of city, utd, chelsea. its difficult to come up with a forumla of some kind that weighs net spend over 5 seasons with wages. but if you could do that, all these sides finish in the ball park of where they should.

And under ferguson, theres no doubt they did very well, but lets not forget they had spent heavily just before the period you mentioned. ie. the had bought the likes of rooney, veron, ferdinand. and its only now that this generation is coming to its end. its not too disimlar to arsenal during 2003-2006. arsenal hadnt really inveted heavily since 2000. but due to the players that they had purchased a few years earlier, they managed to maintain a level of success for a few years later. if man utd continue the trend of spending less than city and chelsea, i fully expect them not to be as successful no matter who the manager is.

and your table of "scaled wages vs points" shows that the rest of the premier league teams are very closely matched in terms of spending, and hence you would expect quite a bit of variance in their final positions.

 

[SteveAWOL]

re the the likes of city, utd, chelsea. its difficult to come up with a forumla of some kind that weighs net spend over 5 seasons with wages. but if you could do that, all these sides finish in the ball park of where they should.

And under ferguson, theres no doubt they did very well, but lets not forget they had spent heavily just before the period you mentioned. ie. the had bought the likes of rooney, veron, ferdinand. and its only now that this generation is coming to its end. its not too disimlar to arsenal during 2003-2006. arsenal hadnt really inveted heavily since 2000. but due to the players that they had purchased a few years earlier, they managed to maintain a level of success for a few years later. if man utd continue the trend of spending less than city and chelsea, i fully expect them not to be as successful no matter who the manager is.

and your table of "scaled wages vs points" shows that the rest of the premier league teams are very closely matched in terms of spending, and hence you would expect quite a bit of variance in their final positions.

What a depressingly cynical view of football you have :|

Levy might as well just hire whichever manager is willing to work for the least wages then, as they are all merely titular figureheads who have no more influence on proceedings than the Monarch has on her subjects and the only way Spurs can ever enjoy any success is to outspend everyone else on playing staff... Fingers crossed that, once the new stadium has been constructed to push up the share price, ENIC can find a bored oligarch with a few £billion burning a hole in his pocket \o/

 

[Raziel]

Fans can come up with many descriptions, but if you were looking at the Spurs job, JD might go something like

- Ability to represent club to media, fans and public
- Strive to improve general club image and perception
- Ability to maximize club result on pitch, including leveraging current first team and youth/academy squads
- Drive need for fan friendly football (attractive style) while delivering results
- Bonus target of 1 first team regular from Academy
- Showing improvement in individual player performances and application
- Minimum results target, e.g. Top 6 PL position, 1 Cup QF
- Exceed results target, e.g. CL spot, Cup Final and/or Trophy
- Work with DoF to ensure maximum ROI on players, minimize bad churn of playing staff
- Work with larger support staff around creating club ethos/style to allow for easier/targeted moves for new players as well as path for developing players through Academy/Youth/Senior team


You would create the general requirement and the measurable to go with each, then add some level of exceeded, achieved, underachieved targets and potentially a mid year re-evaluation of the targets as well as final end of year assesment

 

[Raziel]

re the the likes of city, utd, chelsea. its difficult to come up with a forumla of some kind that weighs net spend over 5 seasons with wages. but if you could do that, all these sides finish in the ball park of where they should.

And under ferguson, theres no doubt they did very well, but lets not forget they had spent heavily just before the period you mentioned. ie. the had bought the likes of rooney, veron, ferdinand. and its only now that this generation is coming to its end. its not too disimlar to arsenal during 2003-2006. arsenal hadnt really inveted heavily since 2000. but due to the players that they had purchased a few years earlier, they managed to maintain a level of success for a few years later. if man utd continue the trend of spending less than city and chelsea, i fully expect them not to be as successful no matter who the manager is.

and your table of "scaled wages vs points" shows that the rest of the premier league teams are very closely matched in terms of spending, and hence you would expect quite a bit of variance in their final positions.

Horrible style example, but Pullis at Cardiff is a very good example of what difference a manager can make.