Obviously the players are the most important ingredient but i was wondering how much a particular football manager affects the success or otherwise of a Premiership club.
I ask this question in the wake on Martin O'Neill's sacking, as i always rated him as a decent manager as he always seemed able to motivate his players to play well but for some reason, this did not seem to happen at Sunderland.
I know it is hypothetical but do you think a Wenger or even a Fungus would have done any better, given the same time scale or have the owners got it right by employing a certifiable nutjob?
£100k+ a week
No serious academic would undertake a study like this but I remember, around 5 years or so ago, reading a paper that argued that the most important criteria for a football manager to be successful at the top level is that he is respected (not necessarily because he is a good manager or even involved in football), has great charisma, looks good...basically that superficial stuff is a lot more important than we think. And that while us fans like to believe there is some hidden, super technical knowledge controlling decisions, managers don't really know as much as we think they do.
Then you also have the incredibly tight relationship between wage expenditure and league position. It's hard to identify a clear causal relationship because obviously winning shit gives you tonnes of cash, which in turns allows you to spend tonnes. But the effect of the shot in the arm that Man City, Chelsea, Blackburn (and others throughout the world) has shown that spending enough can get you over the line.
But I think there's something in that. There is such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' managers but the difference isn't as transparent as when you see Bergkamp and Scott Parker. Fergie or Wenger might not be able to turn things around for Sunderland now. When managers like Wenger and Ferguson are at a club for 82939 years it's difficult to imagine how they would do at another club where they haven't had their fingerprints on all aspects. But they sure as shit wouldn't have spent cash on utter wank to get them into this position.
Who's in your profile pic Patters?
Bobby Fischer the controversial chess genius.
Patters wrote:No serious academic would undertake a study like this but I remember, around 5 years or so ago, reading a paper that argued that the most important criteria for a football manager to be successful at the top level is that he is respected (not necessarily because he is a good manager or even involved in football), has great charisma, looks good...basically that superficial stuff is a lot more important than we think. And that while us fans like to believe there is some hidden, super technical knowledge controlling decisions, managers don't really know as much as we think they do.
Then you also have the incredibly tight relationship between wage expenditure and league position. It's hard to identify a clear causal relationship because obviously winning shit gives you tonnes of cash, which in turns allows you to spend tonnes. But the effect of the shot in the arm that Man City, Chelsea, Blackburn (and others throughout the world) has shown that spending enough can get you over the line.
But I think there's something in that. There is such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' managers but the difference isn't as transparent as when you see Bergkamp and Scott Parker. Fergie or Wenger might not be able to turn things around for Sunderland now. When managers like Wenger and Ferguson are at a club for 82939 years it's difficult to imagine how they would do at another club where they haven't had their fingerprints on all aspects. But they sure as shit wouldn't have spent cash on utter wank to get them into this position.
You are right, football management is not scientific as there are too many variables and intangibles like emotions, history, expectancy of the players, supporters, owners, etc not to mention results dependent on factors beyond the manager's control like referees and the opposition.
I, however, was also interested in the opinionated views of forum members based on gut instinct and personal prejudices as this has more scope for a divergence of opinion.
Not fair as i believe the rating came about due to his relative success with Wycombe, Norwich, Leicester and Celtic. Obviously he has failed at Sunderland and Villa but i have always hated his previous teams as much as his moany voice as they always seemed to give us a hard time.
I think it is fair to call him decent as i think he is in the upper quartile of Premiership Managers.
I don't think he failed at Villa. They went to shit after he walked out. Before that they had their best team in fifteen years or so.
I agree but was trying to be as generous as possible to the opposing point of view.
I think he left Villa in a poor state. He spent a fortune and left them with very little infrastructure in place for future success.
O'Neill made some signings at Villa that turned out very badly and that was after chiding Lerner in the press for years to squeeze more money out of him.
That said I always thought he was a quality manager up until about three or four years ago. I think the suggestion I recently read that he's lost interest and become close-minded is on the money.
I know it is hypothetical but do you think a Wenger or even a Fungus would have done any better, given the same time scale or have the owners got it right by employing a certifiable nutjob?
Wenger would've done better than O'Neill in my opinion, as for the current situation there's so little time I think any manager brought in, including Di Canio, just needs to get lucky.
Why would Wenger have done better at Sunderland? Reputation, charisma, positive mindset, systematic approach to training, health and fitness, willingness to work positively with limited transfer funds, and willingness to let players play to their strengths.
I don't think Ferguson would be capable of moving to a new club.
Burnwinter wrote:Why would Wenger have done better at Sunderland? Reputation, charisma, positive mindset, systematic approach to training, health and fitness, willingness to work positively with limited transfer funds, and willingness to let players play to their strengths.
Well it sure worked for us. 
Well we did better than Sunderland and spent less than Villa!
He won the European cup twice in succession as a player, just sayin.
Pepe LeFrits wrote:I think he left Villa in a poor state. He spent a fortune and left them with very little infrastructure in place for future success.
He spent what Lerner gave him and then Lerner stopped giving him money to continue the project.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand O'Neill's brand of football or his personality, but everything indicates that Lerner's lack of commitment is behind Villa's recent struggles. O'Neill did his part and mostly spent the money wisely. In the process he transformed a dud like James Milner into a quality central midfielder and managed to fool people that Carlos Cuellar was a footballer.
Klaus wrote:Pepe LeFrits wrote:I think he left Villa in a poor state. He spent a fortune and left them with very little infrastructure in place for future success.
He spent what Lerner gave him and then Lerner stopped giving him money to continue the project.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand O'Neill's brand of football or his personality, but everything indicates that Lerner's lack of commitment is behind Villa's recent struggles. O'Neill did his part and mostly spent the money wisely. In the process he transformed a dud like James Milner into a quality central midfielder and managed to fool people that Carlos Cuellar was a footballer.
I agree, Lerner turned off the tap suddenly while they still had players like Reo-Coker in the reserves on relatively high wages.
He's a solid manager, nothing more but his teams are dull to watch.
Good motivator, bad at recruitment.
Thinking about it, i don't remember many/any players praising him as a manager, tactician or person.
Not that it means anything as i realise Mother Teresa would not necessarily be a good manager, but we see lots of Mourinho's ex-players praising him and many ex-Arsenal players praising Wenger.
Not saying it is scientific or 100% positive as not all successful managers are universally praised by their players and being Fabregas' father figure did not help Wenger/us!
As to how good really are the likes of Ferguson and Wenger- Well we'll know about 2-3 years after they've both left their respective clubs.
I'd say if you asked the lads who played for him at Celtic or Leicester they'd have loads of praise for him.
Goal Man city!
True and i think he is the only manager that knew how to activate Heskey's beast mode and not taking anything away from him, i think the Celtic lads adored Lennon that much more due to his passionate defiance