Managers are over rated!

[Luckydestiny]

First of all, let’s get something straight otherwise the point of this post will be misconstrued…Managers play vital roles and a club should always look to get the best manager available to them because of this.

Now thats said, here is my point, the importance of the manager to a clubs performance is generally overstated and overestimated relative to other key factors that contribute to a clubs perceived progress or successes.

Let’s look at an example close to my blue heart.

Graham Potter was lauded for the progress Brighton made under him and given enormous credit because he was the manager that oversaw it. Its easy to presume he is the chief reason for the progress…until he leaves and is replaced by another manager with no PL experience who actually continues to progress Brighton without missing a beat. This is a clear indication that the chief reason for Brightons progress has not been the manager.

Potter moves to a club in chaos with 30 players to choose from and to keep happy, of which there isn’t really a balanced starting 11, and all of a sudden he looks like the worst manager in the league.

Meanwhile many are overlooking this and getting massive hard ons for de zerbi.

My opinion is that the most important factors in a clubs progress and successes is the infrastructure from top to bottom and the quality of the recruitment. Extra credit should be given to managers who are in control of the recruitment but its clear at Brighton the manager manages and the recruitment team recruit, this is more common than not these days. While tuchel was depended on for transfers before we had a DOF in summer it seems clear now that the recruitment is out of the hands of the chelsea manager too.

I believe Brighton make managers look better than they are due to our bias towards crediting the man in the dugout and understandably ignoring that which we dont see, Chelsea managers of late tend to look worse for the very same reason.

Tuchel is way better than we would believe based on his last 12 months with us and I believe Potter is better than we would believe after his time with us. We make them look worse.

I think de zerbi is obviously a good coach but like with Potter, Brighton are likely making him look better than he is.

Let’s face it, most managers appointed in prem league are very good managers, they wouldn’t have been appointed in first place if not. Yes there are exceptions like former players hired based on reputation but generally speaking they are by a large majority all very good and amongst the best in the world. Most of these managers could not fail to exceed expectations at a club like Brighton…the expectations are low yet the infrastructure and recruitment is elite. But conversely most could not improve the fortunes of clubs who are continually making poor decisions, wasting money and building over paid and imbalanced squads. Ie the expectations are high but the infrastructure and recruitment is awful.

I would conclude that an elite manager is always beneficial but unless everything else is done right even harry potter won’t turn it around until everything thing else is turned around.

As a p.s, pool haven’t changed manager but haven’t they regressed in direct correlation to severe reduction in quality of recruitment and squad building? Klopp still kicks ass but the club are not working the same behind him.

_____________________________

React below 👇

*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted

[Editor]

Good post Lucky. I agree with the premise of the post but disagree on the finer details. I’ve said this previously but I think there are 3 key ingredients which determine whether or not a manager is successful and they are imo:

1. The structure of the club. This includes all the key decision makers of the football club. The chief scouts, data team, director of football. The sum of the whole structure in essence.

2. Resources. Both how much money is available for strengthening but also the quality of players the manager inherits as well as the quality of the academy. That last point for multiple reasons. Partly because the manager can pick and choose top talent from the academy but also because a conveyor belt of talent provides a constant stream of income which can then be reinvested in more players.

3. The quality and fit of the coach. The last part is often underestimated IMO. I’m a big believer in managers suiting certain types of jobs. Someone like Klopp IMO suits being an underdog manager. He needs to almost have a Bayern or a City to topple to be able to create that siege mentality in his squad. Pep needs to have the strongest technical squad in the competition for him to succeed. Someone like Moyes made a fantastic Everton manager but was unable to maintain the overperformance at a club expected to dominate. A bad fit. He is simply more suited to a side not expected to win much.

IMO a club’s success under a particular manager is the result of the above equation where I feel each one is weighted differently. IMO the third point,the manager should be weighted the highest followed by the club’s structure (1) followed by resources (2). I think weakness in either 1 or 2 can be masked by the others being of a high enough standard but I think the third point, the manager/coach is the only point which can’t be masked by the other 2. Certainly not over any length of time. Potte, for me, simply isn’t a good fit at Chelsea. He isn’t suited to being at a club expected to dominate games and win most games,much like Moyes. That’s not to say he can’t exceed expectations at another club, just as he did at Brighton but the circumstances need to be right.

_____________________________

React below 👇

*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted

[Luckydestiny]

Ed, I think Sir Alex has heavily influenced your thinking here. If we are talking about managers like him, that completely fit the needs and ambitions of a club and who are given full control I would agree with you that the manager is more important than I have suggested, however I think this is less and less typical now and more and more clubs work like Brighton and have first team coaches rather than managers of the ilk of fergie.

I would say that a clubs resources is now better described as its ability to generate income (as the vast majority of clubs abide by FFP). Now if the aim is winning the league, is having a good manager more important than being able to afford a good squad? I don’t think so and so this is just one factor that is more important than a manager generally speaking. I would say its better to have a good squad and average manager relative to the league you are in than an average squad and a good manager. (accepting your point that by good manager I mean good fit for squad or club ambitions).

Now I know there are exceptions and ten hag has had some real influence in first team recruitment for example, but this really is getting less common. In this case the manager is of greater importance than a mere first team head coach to the progress of the club, but again in this case who he can bring in is dictated by the clubs ability to generate income and invest in first team.

We also see clubs changing managers almost every season these days, in these cases the club needs to take control of ensuring a balanced squad is built and maintained, in these cases, where the manager doesn’t control recruitment, the quality if recruitment imo is more important than the quality of the head coach.

I think there is a clear distinction between manager and first team coach which needs to be acknowledged but in either case I believe the clubs ability and potential ability to generate income is fundamental, more and more so now.

_____________________________

React below 👇

*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted

[Mikus LFC]

Some fair points Lucky. I get frustrated when people talk about a manager – either crediting him or lambasting him for bringing in a certain player when we don’t really know how much influence that manager had on that player coming. It tends to be the case when a manager is appointed he’ll try and bring in some players he’s worked with before but they actually tend to be few and far between and in some ways you don’t want the manager having full control because finding good players is a different skillset and managers should be busy enough coaching the team day to day for them to also be scouting for players.

An interesting example is Rodgers at Liverpool. He made an excellent start and arguably exceeded expectations. But when Suarez was sold the club blew the money on poor signings and Rodgers never really recovered from that (even if one can still make some valid criticisms of Rodgers himself).

What I will say is this though regarding the manager. A good manager can help drive the club in the right direction. Rodgers almost won the title in his second season. Klopp got to two finals in his first season. Arteta won the FA Cup in his first season. Ten Hag has won the league cup in his first season. Tuchel won the CL in his first season at Chelsea. To some extent you could argue all these managers overachieved in these early successes in relation to the squads they had. And it helped set the tone of the club going forwards – creating excitement, putting the club on the map and so making them attractive to prospective top players around the world. In quite a few cases though, the early success can make the club drunk and they can then blow money on hyped up players. It’s holding your nerve that’s the key.

So for me, the most important attribute at a club is that of the overall set up and that they hold their nerve and don’t get affected by success and hype. They stay true to their tried and tested principles. And from that they don’t mind making brave decisions to either bring someone in or move established managers or players on. You look at the owners at City and yes of course you can’t overlook the money invested. But they are still very good operators nonetheless. Bayern are also pretty good operators. And obviously as you mention Brighton too. These clubs don’t panic if they lose an important player or even the manager. Because chances are they’ve already thought about the successor long before and they have the stability of the whole set up they’ve created. In short the club is bigger than anyone of those. It’s a cliché you often hear but it seldom seems to be practised.

_____________________________

React below 👇

*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted

[Author]

Posts