What makes a good manager?

[Millsy_Yiddo]

For me the most important thing a manager needs to be able to do is to be able to recognise what is going wrong on a match day, and have the knowledge and confidence to alter things to counteract. Everything else pales in comparison to this.

 

[Neymar]

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/

No, we should hire the best manager we can. Manager's are very important, hence their salaries. But fundamentally, we will have to improve our spending capacity if we want to experience the kind of success Emirates Marketing Project, Bayern, Chelsea, Barcelona, Real Madrid have had recently. It's no surprise to me that the best performing teams in Europe are also the ones who have spent the most on their playing staff.

And i don't agree that my view is depressingly cynical. My hope is that one day we can get a wenger of our own, whom together with levy can expand our finances so that we can hold on to the likes of modric and bale.

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

Again, I'm not saying manager's don't have massive influence. My point is just that the in-game tactical aspect of management is overplayed by the media. And I don't think you can make too many conclusions based on Pulis' 4/5 month stint as crystal palace's manager. However, i do think he is a decent manager. But when you look at stoke's performances under him, its well in-line with where you would predict them to be based on their expenditure.

 

[Neymar]

I'll try to make my point clearer.

I beleive that the tactical aspect of the game is an important part of management. I just don't think it is the "golden key" to great management. There's hundreds of factors making up the profile of top managers, and tactical accumen is just one of these.

That's why i don't beleive that teams can jump 2/3 places up in the league simply because their manager is more tactically astute than their rivals. Posters have mentioned the like's of Pulis in suggesting that they are an example of tactical nouse leading to their teams performing better than expected. I disagree with this because no one can prove either way that it was pulis' tactical genius that has improved crystal palace's performances. i suspect it was more to do with pulis' ability to motivate players, and that maybe things had just got stale under holloway. and also, they have only played a few games under pulis. there is a massive element of luck in football as we all know, and perhaps if a couple of refereeing decisions had gone against them, we would be analysing crystal palace differently.

 

[billyiddo]

Rodgers at Liverpool, for the time being, suggests otherwise.

I could have sworn i used a similar argument to you in the Woolich thread when you was praising Wengers record over the last few years - by your argument above Wenger has them where they should be, no higher no lower - so why are you such a big fan?

 

[Neymar]

I'll try to make my point clearer.

I beleive that the tactical aspect of the game is an important part of management. I just don't think it is the "golden key" to great management. There's hundreds of factors making up the profile of top managers, and tactical accumen is just one of these.

That's why i don't beleive that teams can jump 2/3 places up in the league simply because their manager is more tactically astute than their rivals. Posters have mentioned the like's of Pulis in suggesting that they are an example of tactical nouse leading to their teams performing better than expected. I disagree with this because no one can prove either way that it was pulis' tactical genius that has improved crystal palace's performances. i suspect it was more to do with pulis' ability to motivate players, and that maybe things had just got stale under holloway. and also, they have only played a few games under pulis. there is a massive element of luck in football as we all know, and perhaps if a couple of refereeing decisions had gone against them, we would be analysing crystal palace differently.

ultimately we will need to be able to spend top money for top players and offer those players top salaries. that's why getting a new stadium is important. and perhaps why even the sale of bale is important as it gives us the potential to re-invest those funds into players who we see value in. and who has done these kind of things better than anyone else in world football? unfortunately for us, its that frenchman down the road

 

[Neymar]

Rodgers at Liverpool, for the time being, suggests otherwise

again, 1 season. theres a lot of variance involved. just look at their last game. perhaps if suarez is sent off, the dynamics of the title race may be totally different.
and also i'm still massively unconvinced with rodgers. i would be highly surprised if rodgers is a manager of a top 4 side in four years time. and if we all think about it, i'm sure most of you here would agree with that.

and if this thread was made 12-24 months ago, people would probably be naming klopp. but look at dortmund now. the fact that they can't match bayern's spending potential has caught up with them. they got lucky with some players that came through their academy and some signings too. the fact is, signing players and developing players is not an exact science. and the kind of results they were having in player development is unsustainable in the long term. look at their plight now. theyve lost kagawa, goetze, lewandowski. and brought in the likes of mhkitariyan and aubemayang (who are great players, but not as good as the ones that have left). and now they are trying to replace lewandowski with a sunderland reject (ji dong-won) and an obscure 28 y/o colombian who has a 1 in 10 goal ratio for his country (adrian ramos). and if we are honest, it is probably only a matter of time before the likes of reus, hummels, gundogan leave. this is why they are going to finish like 20 points off bayern for the 2nd year in a row. it is not the fault of the manager or his tactical nouse. what they need to do is somehow be able to spend like bayern so that they can hold onto the players they develop and add some better ones too. or hope for ffp to come in...

on an unrelated side note, when we see the likes of dortmund (and southampton in england) losing their players, you can see what wenger is doing, and the genius of it. basically clubs like dortmund cannot compete with psg/bayern/city etc in terms of spending potential in wages and transfer fees. thats why dortmund neither buy the likes of neymar, or give 200k p/w salaries.

i believe that wenger has recognised that arsenal cannot spend like this too. but he has realised that he can develop young players. and so what he is trying to do is give the massive salaries to be able to hold onto the top players that he develops (and almost eliminating transfer fees altogether). this is probably the best way that "smaller" clubs like us, dortmund and arsenal can keep top players. because they can't afford to pay top dollar in fees and wages. thats why i beleive we should look to make as many young superstars as possible, in the hope that some of them fullfill their potential. and this will mean we could sell some to fund the others' salaries. whilst at the same time, maintain a level of perfomance on the pitch. we need someone who can do this. not a "tactical genius".

 

[milo]

This is a fascinating discussion that I am not sure I can add much of value to at this stage but I just wanted to say that I am enjoying your posts.

 

[africanspurs]

Man management and a strong, almost insanely strong, dedication to a philiosphy.

Also being able to identify people that will buy into that philosophy

no easy thing to do on any of those

 

[Seedy Ron]

A willingness to use his jaffs to make a point about substitutions.

 

[Raziel]

again, 1 season. theres a lot of variance involved. just look at their last game. perhaps if suarez is sent off, the dynamics of the title race may be totally different.
and also i'm still massively unconvinced with rodgers. i would be highly surprised if rodgers is a manager of a top 4 side in four years time. and if we all think about it, i'm sure most of you here would agree with that.

and if this thread was made 12-24 months ago, people would probably be naming klopp. but look at dortmund now. the fact that they can't match bayern's spending potential has caught up with them. they got lucky with some players that came through their academy and some signings too. the fact is, signing players and developing players is not an exact science. and the kind of results they were having in player development is unsustainable in the long term. look at their plight now. theyve lost kagawa, goetze, lewandowski. and brought in the likes of mhkitariyan and aubemayang (who are great players, but not as good as the ones that have left). and now they are trying to replace lewandowski with a sunderland reject (ji dong-won) and an obscure 28 y/o colombian who has a 1 in 10 goal ratio for his country (adrian ramos). and if we are honest, it is probably only a matter of time before the likes of reus, hummels, gundogan leave. this is why they are going to finish like 20 points off bayern for the 2nd year in a row. it is not the fault of the manager or his tactical nouse. what they need to do is somehow be able to spend like bayern so that they can hold onto the players they develop and add some better ones too. or hope for ffp to come in...

on an unrelated side note, when we see the likes of dortmund (and southampton in england) losing their players, you can see what wenger is doing, and the genius of it. basically clubs like dortmund cannot compete with psg/bayern/city etc in terms of spending potential in wages and transfer fees. thats why dortmund neither buy the likes of neymar, or give 200k p/w salaries.

i believe that wenger has recognised that arsenal cannot spend like this too. but he has realised that he can develop young players. and so what he is trying to do is give the massive salaries to be able to hold onto the top players that he develops (and almost eliminating transfer fees altogether). this is probably the best way that "smaller" clubs like us, dortmund and arsenal can keep top players. because they can't afford to pay top dollar in fees and wages. thats why i beleive we should look to make as many young superstars as possible, in the hope that some of them fullfill their potential. and this will mean we could sell some to fund the others' salaries. whilst at the same time, maintain a level of perfomance on the pitch. we need someone who can do this. not a "tactical genius".

Wenger is actually a bad example in my opinion because inherently I know longer believe the Scum are truly striving for greater results (if it comes, great, but top 4 plus getting out of group stage at CL is their version of success)

I think you are making a few mistakes in your evaluation of the impact of a manager

- You are trying to compare spend and show placement. The truth is more money usually does equal better quality, and better quality does give you a better chance of success. The problem is, it is only a better chance, not a guarantee of success, those points still have to be earned and the manager has a large part to do with that.
- You are making the other assumption that their is a massive gap in the quality of managers in the top leagues, so it should be relatively easy to see the impact. Truth is top leagues pay top wages for managers as well and get the best, how much difference is there between Martinez, Moyes, Pulis, Bruce, Rodgers, etc?

I think where you can see what a manager does is a few highlighted examples where things either drastically improved or declined

- Pulis at Cardiff is an example, no one would have had them safe with 4 games to go, regardless of spend or not spend
- Curbs at Charlton, he left, where are they now?
- Harry's impact here with Ramos squad
- Pick "insert club name here" that have been relegated that shouldn't have (Saudi Sportswashing Machine a few year ago? West Ham?)

Bad management appointments may actually show you the impact more than good, as per my above point, the gap between decent, good & very good is small, but can't be discounted as the margins of success in football are also small.

 

[Neymar]

Raziel, if i have understood your post correctly, you seem to think that:
- i do not think a manager's influence on a club is significant.
- i think there is a massive gap in the quality of managers in the top leagues. and that it should be easy to see this.

i don't agree with either of these tbh. i strongly believe that manager's do play a large part in the success of their clubs. and i can't really see where you have got the notion that i don't think this.

and on the point that there is a massive gap in quality between manager's, well i guess it depends on how each of us would define "massive". but i definitely do not agree that the gap between managers' should be "easily spotted". firstly because i think you can only really start judging a manager's long-term significance and impact after a number of years (due to the inherent variance involved in football). but also because i don't think that league table positions are necessarily the best indicator of a manager's performance. this is for the reasons i have stated previously: in short, league positions are basically a reflection of the financial outlay spent on the playing staff. so to judge a manager's performance, i believe you need to look at how the manager is creating value on and off the pitch. and it is by creating "value" that the club will be able to spend more in the future on its playing staff, thus giving itself a higher chance of success.

my fundamental point was that the advantage that can be gained through tactical accumen between managers is overplayed by the media. and this point was followed with my belief that if you want to see your club genuinely rise up the rankings and stay there, you need to have the financial backing to do so. It was not that managers’ are unimportant.

 

[SteveAWOL]

No, we should hire the best manager we can. Manager's are very important, hence their salaries. But fundamentally, we will have to improve our spending capacity if we want to experience the kind of success Emirates Marketing Project, Bayern, Chelsea, Barcelona, Real Madrid have had recently. It's no surprise to me that the best performing teams in Europe are also the ones who have spent the most on their playing staff.

And i don't agree that my view is depressingly cynical. My hope is that one day we can get a wenger of our own, whom together with levy can expand our finances so that we can hold on to the likes of modric and bale.


Again, I'm not saying manager's don't have massive influence. My point is just that the in-game tactical aspect of management is overplayed by the media. And I don't think you can make too many conclusions based on Pulis' 4/5 month stint as crystal palace's manager. However, i do think he is a decent manager. But when you look at stoke's performances under him, its well in-line with where you would predict them to be based on their expenditure.

So your idea of the perfect Spurs manager is a financial genius who makes a tidy profit on transfers every season and has no delusions that the club will challenge for the title, as we are the 6th biggest spenders and any variance from that in the league is just an aberration. Well until the day that Spurs' youth team is regularly churning out Gareth Bales whom Levy can sell for £100m every summer in order to allow us to compete financially with the lotto winners and match those £200k wages so our stars aren't lured away.

Mourinho must be the luckiest manager in European football to keep getting jobs at just the right time that has won more silverware than his predecessors and successors at Porto/Chelsea/Inter/Real, what with his supposed motivational and tactical abilities being irrelevant qualities. I hope that we are able to hire a manager with as much luck as Jose when our new stadium is constructed and Spurs finally have approximately as much spending power as ARSEnal.

 

[Neymar]

Wenger is actually a bad example in my opinion because inherently I know longer believe the Scum are truly striving for greater results (if it comes, great, but top 4 plus getting out of group stage at CL is their version of success)

I agree that arsenal's owners may not be particularly interested in sporting success. but i suspect wenger is all about sporting success. i just can't believe that someone could win multiple titles and honors in the past without having an enormous amount of sporting ambition. when you see wenger these days, he looks a shadow of the man he used to be. for me, this is clearly someone who is dying inside due to the frustration of not being able to bring the level of success that his ambition desires. if anyone at arsenal is striving for success, its wenger.

the problem is however, the spending gap between arsenal and the likes of city is so big that it is difficult for a club like arsenal to sustain a challenge long term. all they can do right now is continue to try to increase their revenue sources in order to close down whatever financial gap they can between themselves and the teams above them. there is no quick fix. which is what i believe that football fans of "smaller" clubs are trying to get/see when they demand a new manager with more "tactical genius", so that they can overtake rival clubs who have a significantly larger spending capacity than themselves. this never happens.

additionally, this is why i think levy is the best chairman for us. he is a chairman who appears to genuinely be one of the best at creating "value". It would be great if we could find a manager with similar traits to work in tandem with levy. I also think that selling Bale for the record fee wasn't so bad. because this is an example of us having created "value" and then having cashed in on it. had we spent that money a bit more carefully i think that we could have edged ever closer to the clubs above us (I still think some of these signings will come good next year). unless we get a multi-billionaire, this is the direction that we should be looking to continue in.

most fans would never have wanted bale to leave because i believe fans want instant gratification and success in the short term. and keeping the likes of bale would have no doubt improved our chances of success in the short term. however for long term success, i believe that the sale of bale was a good idea. if we look at dortmund, they decided to keep lewandowski and no doubt improved their chances of success this year (but missed out on a big transfer fee; rumoured to be about £25m). was that really the best option for them? or was it just to appease the fans? i personally think that they should've cashed in on him and tried to find value somewhere else with that money. I think its in moments like this that the likes of levy and wenger really show their worth to their clubs. its just a shame that when they do sell the likes of bale, modric, fabregas or rvp, the media spins it as the club showing a lack of ambition and so they are then viewed negatively by fans. when in reality, it was probably the best choice for the club in the long term.

this is why manager's like redknapp are so bad for clubs. they basically put massive public pressure on their owner's to spend beyond their means (or keep player's that they shouldn't) for short term gains. the only winner is the manager himself when he leaves the club with an improved cv. you can just imagine redknapp boasting about his fa cup wins and top 4 finishes in job interviews, when in reality what he did at those clubs weren't all with the best interests of the club at heart.

 

[superfaisty]

I think the money point is a very good point. Imo a manager can have a greatr impact on a lower mid table epl team than on the top 4 teams, because the overall quality of playrs below the top 4 or 6 is that much lower and proper organisation can go along way. There more likely to listen to you take on board what you say and want.

Top 4 team players are generally the cream of the crop top quality players, been there done that types, harder to motivate, harder to mould unless you have a very persuasive larger than life personality and charisma. Very few if these types in life let alone in football.

What we need is that charismatic type but with a vision of playing poditive football. It might tske some timeand it will no diubt require an overhaul but it can be done. Poch at soton has proved it can be done, martinez is doing it at everton.

 

[Neymar]

So your idea of the perfect Spurs manager is a financial genius who makes a tidy profit on transfers every season and has no delusions that the club will challenge for the title, as we are the 6th biggest spenders and any variance from that in the league is just an aberration. Well until the day that Spurs' youth team is regularly churning out Gareth Bales whom Levy can sell for £100m every summer in order to allow us to compete financially with the lotto winners and match those £200k wages so our stars aren't lured away.

Mourinho must be the luckiest manager in European football to keep getting jobs at just the right time that has won more silverware than his predecessors and successors at Porto/Chelsea/Inter/Real, what with his supposed motivational and tactical abilities being irrelevant qualities. I hope that we are able to hire a manager with as much luck as Jose when our new stadium is constructed and Spurs finally have approximately as much spending power as ARSEnal.

My idea of the perfect spurs manager is someone who can work with levy to increase out financial potential. If delusions could lead us to be the next leeds utd, I would rather not have those delusions. We are the 6th biggest spenders in the league at the moment. But I hope levy, the manager, and others (ie. baldini) can work together so that we can be bigger spenders in the future, improving our chances of success.

Mourinho is not a “lucky” manager. He is a very good manager and deserves all his successes. He has great motivational, tactical, coaching, etc etc abilities. I wouldn’t suggest any otherwise. Again, my point was that the “tactical” aspect of the manager’s role is overplayed. Perhaps because it is the easiest aspect of a manager to analyse (and tv/newspapers do need to fill up their shows and columns).

But did mourinho really win more than any other manager at Real Madrid and Chelsea? I got the impression that he wasn’t that successful at Real Madrid and that’s why he ultimately left. At Chelsea from 2004-2007, he won 2 league cups, 2 epl titles, 1 fa cup (and a community shield). In the last 4 seasons (2009-2013, they had 3 managers), they have won 1 epl title, 3 fa cups, 1 europa league, 1 ucl (and a community shield). Hence, I disagree with you that he necessarily wins more than his predecessors.

And also, with all those four clubs (Porto, RM, Chelsea, Inter), he had arguably the largest spending capacity in the respective leagues. In Inter Milan’s case, Moratti (inter president) decided to go all out for success in the year mourinho did the treble with them, and gave him the largest amount of money that any inter manager has ever had. Consequently, they are now suffering for this and look miles off that level of success. Once mourinho left they basically had to strip down their squad in an attempt to balance the books. Hence the departures of zlatan, sneijder, etoo etc. it is no wonder that the managers’ that came after mourinho didn’t have as much success as him. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if you replace zlatan, sneijder and etoo with the likes of icardi, ricky alvarez and guarin, you might not be quite as successful.

Let me highlight however, this is not to say that I do not rate mourinho. I certainly do think he is very good. I just don’t feel that his tactical acumen is as big an advantage over other managers as the media like to make it out to be.

And I seem to have to highlight again that I have never said that tactical or motivational skills are unimportant. How many times do I have to say this?

 

[Neymar]

I think the money point is a very good point. Imo a manager can have a greatr impact on a lower mid table epl team than on the top 4 teams, because the overall quality of playrs below the top 4 or 6 is that much lower and proper organisation can go along way. There more likely to listen to you take on board what you say and want.

Top 4 team players are generally the cream of the crop top quality players, been there done that types, harder to motivate, harder to mould unless you have a very persuasive larger than life personality and charisma. Very few if these types in life let alone in football.

What we need is that charismatic type but with a vision of playing poditive football. It might tske some timeand it will no diubt require an overhaul but it can be done. Poch at soton has proved it can be done, martinez is doing it at everton.

I think that you're probably correct in that managers may be able to have greater influence lower down the league (and the football tree) due to a lower quality of players. but i still think that the main reason you see quite a bit of "variance" lower down the league is due to the fact that the spending differential between these clubs isnt as pronounced as it can be higher up the league, where you have some owners that basically have unlimited spending power.

 

[Superhudd]

What makes a good manager?


A good story behind the season, so it seems!


Lets hope our new manager has somekind of x-factor teary story when he comes to rival the 25th anniversary malarkey!. Finding out he is adopted will do.

 

[Spur of the moment]

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

Palace, even.

 

[braineclipse]

In no particular order:

Tactical ability.
Motivational ability, part of this is being a good communicator.
Player development ability, part of this is being pedagogical.
Transfer market ability.
Bravery and confidence, both at least bordering on arrogance.

 

[braineclipse]

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.

Your Mourinho example is a complete and utter straw man. No one is saying that the reason you present is why he's a brilliant tactical manager. And presenting one out of essentially an infinite number of tactical decisions made and say that "this one didn't show tactical brilliance" doesn't constitute an argument.

But you look at the way his Chelsea team beat City away this season. You look at how his Chelsea and Inter teams were among the few to effectively bus-park/stop Barca at their best. You look at how he identifies players that fit his system and brings them in, combined with how he identifies players that aren't good fits and get rid of them. Just as quick, off the top of my head examples of where he shines where others fail.

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 agree with this, but part of this is the fact that clubs with more financial muscle will be able to attract and keep top managers much better than smaller clubs.