Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

[JPRouve]

Ok so your first sentence I do think age has relevance but not because of potential for success.

If we were to sack Ten Hag I would prefer a younger manager but only because I’m assuming the 50+ year old world class ones aren’t available they tend to hold down good positions. So you have to gamble on the next generation which I think is where this weird conflation of trying to prove a point with a bit of analysis that isn’t statistically significant comes in.

If anything Ten Hag at 54 is a prime candidate for success given the available data on PL managers.

Id argue those biological factors are in no way shape or form as statistically relevant as the point you’re then trying to make would make them out to be given. In other words it’s a very weak argument with no statistical basis that isn’t easily explained away as normal everyday variance.

30 coin flips don’t always land 15/15 etc.

I find it odd that someone who usually posts a well reasoned argument like yourself has decided this is of any statistically significant consequence.

So you think that a manager success or failure are random?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

But those that are successful managers at 55 already were successful managers at 45 - if not in terms of winning the PL then in terms of doing such a good job that the title contending clubs look at hiring them..

Ok this point I’ll agree with.

But this is why I want a definition or example of success from @JPRouve believe it or not I’m not looking for a “gotcha” moment here. I’m trying to understand the argument and its relevance.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

So you think that a manager success or failure are random?

If age is the variable we are determining success by then yes.

 

[Roux]

But those that are successful managers at 55 already were successful managers at 45 - if not in terms of winning the PL then in terms of doing such a good job that the title contending clubs look at hiring them..

Well yes - the point is that they didn't just suddenly stop becoming successful after 50yo, if anything, the trend shows them winning more post 50yo - Fergie was the same. Nobody is going to turn down Pep or Klopp when they push 60, Klopp is almost 57 and could win the PL in a few months.

 

[JPRouve]

So your point is managers develop in their 40s into better ones?

For lack of better image, I would describe most careers as an incline in the 30s-40s, a plateau in the late 40s-early 50s and a decline after that.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

Can see him back at Ajax this year. The longer these performances and results go on, the more he will have to rebuild his reputation.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

But also @FortunaUtd isn’t that kind of a “well duh” observation.

Managers that show promise in their managerial careers sometimes make good on that promise at bigger clubs?

(Again depending on how we define that early success)

 

[BenitoSTARR]

For lack of better image, I would describe most careers as an incline in the 30s-40s, a plateau in the late 40s-early 50s and a decline after that.

In your opinion and that’s ok but it’s not what statistically is being shown.

If your point is more “great managers have usually shown signs of success in their 40s that indicate future success” then I’d be inclined to agree.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Your attackers in a 4-3-3 shouldn’t be picking up the wingbacks in a 3-5-2. That’s the role of the fullbacks. Your wingers are the problem then for the opposition as either the wide CBs have to come across to close the gaps, leaving 1v1 in the middle, or the wingbacks have to stay back to avoid leaving the wingers unmarked. The wide forwards can then also press on the CBs, together with your CF, so you can push the whole team forwards.

Of course, your wingers can still fill in and switch to a 4-5-1 at times but if your wingers are tracking the opposition’s wingbacks then you generally have a problem having any sort of outlet.

That makes sense thank you for the context there.

 

[JPRouve]

Ok this point I’ll agree with.

But this is why I want a definition or example of success from @JPRouve believe it or not I’m not looking for a “gotcha” moment here. I’m trying to understand the argument and its relevance.

As I said it's relative because it literally is. It can be anything, if we are talking about Pochettino his most successful period will be his Southampton and early Tottenham period, Moyes it will be the first part of his Everton tenure, Ancelotti will be the early 2000s, Mourinho mid to late 2000s.

For some managers it will be avoiding relegation against all odds, for others it will be winning the CL, for others stabilizing a club at a new level or developing players. It can be anything because it's entirely linked to the manager's own career.

 

[croadyman]

Agree. Silly to write off a signing after an injury ravaged year. Had he been fit and played like crap that would be easier to conclude.

Yeah I think that's a very valid point

 

[JPRouve]

In your opinion and that’s ok but it’s not what statistically is being shown.

If your point is more “great managers have usually shown signs of success in their 40s that indicate future success” then I’d be inclined to agree.

No the point is that managers tend to be successful earlier in their career, some continue well into their 50s and most don't.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

As I said it's relative because it literally is. It can be anything, if we are talking about Pochettino his most successful period will be his Southampton and early Tottenham period, Moyes it will be the first part of his Everton tenure, Ancelotti will be the early 2000s, Mourinho mid to late 2000s.

For some managers it will be avoiding relegation against all odds, for others it will be winning the CL, for others stabilizing a club at a new level or developing players. It can be anything because it's entirely linked to the manager's own career.

Ok I understand you now. I wanted to know if you would class things like avoiding relegation as successes or if it was limited to some form of silverware.

You may be interested to read this from 2019
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...avent-won-trophy-43-years-old-probably-never/

I just disagree that managers drop off when you say they do. I think there is more nuance to the role than that.

I do agree that by your mid 40s most managers have had their “success” which then leads to their big break.

 

[JPRouve]

Ok I understand you now. I wanted to know if you would class things like avoiding relegation as successes or if it was limited to some form of silverware.

You may be interested to read this from 2019
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...avent-won-trophy-43-years-old-probably-never/

I just disagree that managers drop off when you say they do. I think there is more nuance to the role than that.

I do agree that by your mid 40s most managers have had their “success” which then leads to their big break.

When do you think they tend to decline?

 

[mu4c_20le]

Agree. Silly to write off a signing after an injury ravaged year. Had he been fit and played like crap that would be easier to conclude.

Nah, still a daft signing at that price no matter how you look at it. Not only did we have other more important areas to cover, he was coming off of two poor years and would've been free next summer. With Mainoo playing so well this season I really can't see how he would've started for us either.

 

[Roux]

As I said it's relative because it literally is. It can be anything, if we are talking about Pochettino his most successful period will be his Southampton and early Tottenham period, Moyes it will be the first part of his Everton tenure, Ancelotti will be the early 2000s, Mourinho mid to late 2000s.

For some managers it will be avoiding relegation against all odds, for others it will be winning the CL, for others stabilizing a club at a new level or developing players. It can be anything because it's entirely linked to the manager's own career.

Being relative, as you say - it makes it even harder to define levels of success, because I agree when you say sometimes staying up from relegation is success. It's a hard thing to quantify.

So again, no idea how you could come up with such a blanket statement with no real facts/data about how you come to your conclusion - it's more of an opinion than factually correct. History shows you can be just as successful at 55 as you can be at 45.

 

[DJ_21]

Well its Brentford... His job is to keep them in the PL and avoid relegation. What's he's done with this Brentford team for the past few years has been outstanding.

I agree with that. However we’ve hit a new low if we’re targeting managers from the likes of Brentford.

 

[Daydreamer]

As I said it's relative because it literally is. It can be anything, if we are talking about Pochettino his most successful period will be his Southampton and early Tottenham period, Moyes it will be the first part of his Everton tenure, Ancelotti will be the early 2000s, Mourinho mid to late 2000s.

For some managers it will be avoiding relegation against all odds, for others it will be winning the CL, for others stabilizing a club at a new level or developing players. It can be anything because it's entirely linked to the manager's own career.

I think the trouble some people might be having with the line of reasoning is that there's an inherent survivorship bias. In order to be a successful Manager after the age of 50, you almost always have to have been a successful Manger before the age of 50. If you haven't been successful by then... you're highly unlikely to be managing at all - let alone successfully.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

When do you think they tend to decline?

I think that’s an impossible question to answer I think it varies so much manager to manager that it’s not worth speculating on.

But let’s say it was worth it 65+ years old I’m not expecting many successful managers. Essentially retirement age. I think winners usually try to leave before they become losers or very soon after

What I think is more relevant is to look at how likely they are to be successful at fixed points in time and the future based on their contexts.

I’m sorry I can’t give a better answer but I just think there’s too many variables. 100% though I’d say the next manager after Ten Hag whenever that may be will be a younger one.

 

[Telsim]

6 pages since my visit in the morning. I thought the good news had arrived.

Nope.

 

[JPRouve]

I think the trouble some people might be having with the line of reasoning is that there's an inherent survivorship bias. In order to be a successful Manager after the age of 50, you almost always have to have been a successful Manger before the age of 50. If you haven't been successful by then... you're highly unlikely to be managing at all - let alone successfully.

Yes, that's true.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

I think the trouble some people might be having with the line of reasoning is that there's an inherent survivorship bias. In order to be a successful Manager after the age of 50, you almost always have to have been a successful Manger before the age of 50. If you haven't been successful by then... you're highly unlikely to be managing at all - let alone successfully.

That’s the exact phrase I was looking for! Thank you!

It’s what I was trying to get across here:

But also @FortunaUtd isn’t that kind of a “well duh” observation.

Managers that show promise in their managerial careers sometimes make good on that promise at bigger clubs?

(Again depending on how we define that early success)

Which is why I think it’s a really odd thing to really want to dive into.

 

[FortunaUtd]

But also @FortunaUtd isn’t that kind of a “well duh” observation.

Managers that show promise in their managerial careers sometimes make good on that promise at bigger clubs?

(Again depending on how we define that early success)

The observation is that managers do not become elite at a later age. The elite ones are already 'irresistible' and arguably at their most dynamic and influential in their mid to late 40s.

In other words, managers do not "come good" after not being just that great, unlike some seem to be arguing here *cough*

 

[Redstain]

The main problem with our signings isn't the price but the fact that the manager doesn't actually have a good plan to integrate them. Even the good ones like Lisandro or Hojlund aren't actually put in a position to maximize their abilities. We signed a mobile striker and largely used him as a sort of target man, we have a highly technical CB and we use him as a sort of traditional stopper, then you have Casemiro who has been a great defensive midfielder but is used as a sort of box to box.

The issue isn't on the accounting side of things, it's on the pitch. Most of what we do is senseless and the only reason we are decent is because some of our players are actually talented.

Spot on

 

[Roux]

The observation is that managers do not become elite at a later age. The elite ones are already 'irresistible' and arguably at their most dynamic and influential in their mid to late 40s.

Nobody is saying this. It's moreso the other way round - they don't rapidly decline after 50yo and achieve less success.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

The observation is that managers do not become elite at a later age. The elite ones are already 'irresistible' and arguably at their most dynamic and influential in their mid to late 40s.

It’s still a “well duh” observation though. Managerial careers tend to start late 30s early 40s due to playing careers ending and gaining relevant qualifications. If managers started younger you’d see the age drop but it tends to be ex footballers. So there’s an age bias already in your data.

But it also is dependent on relative experience and talent not just age (you also need to be incredibly lucky to get your break to be able to stand out)

I realise that’s a rude way of saying it so the words I was looking for were “survivorship bias”.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

The observation is that managers do not become elite at a later age. The elite ones are already 'irresistible' and arguably at their most dynamic and influential in their mid to late 40s.

In other words, managers do not "come good" after not being just that great, unlike some seem to be arguing here *cough*

Nobody is arguing that? Please tell me who is and point out their posts that suggest that?

 

[tomaldinho1]

6 pages since my visit in the morning. I thought the good news had arrived.

Nope.

ETH has just signed a new 8 year contract with full control over transfers.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Nah, still a daft signing at that price no matter how you look at it. Not only did we have other more important areas to cover, he was coming off of two poor years and would've been free next summer. With Mainoo playing so well this season I really can't see how he would've started for us either.

He's barely had a chance to play, but apparently now we're calling a signing "daft" for the simple reason that we didn't like it. It does matter how you look at it, because most of the rational world judges a transfer according to the output on the pitch, but you're ahead of the curve I suppose

 

[Steve 007]

If ETH loses the next two games he’s surely gone. So who can we get?

The scary thing is that Bayern, Liverpool and Barcelona all want a new manager and are all teams that can challenge and win things. They are all in CL as well. Unless you are a Utd fan you’d be pretty stupid to come here if you could get a job at any of them.

 

[Redstain]

If ETH loses the next two games he’s surely gone. So who can we get?

The scary thing is that Bayern, Liverpool and Barcelona all want a new manager and are all teams that can challenge and win things. They are all in CL as well. Unless you are a Utd fan you’d be pretty stupid to come here if you could get a job at any of them.

Given the prestige and pedigree of the club historically it's still a profound role in management. You have to consider that since SAF retired the mantle for success will still be framed after his influence so any manager who wins the league or the UCL with United will get plaudits above and beyond. It will take a very ambitious manager to succeed here.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Alpha 1]

@BenitoSTARR the question is do you think Ten Hag is an elite or potentially elite manager? ( he will take us back to contention), and if so, what is your reasoning?

Do you think he survives at Real Madrid or another elite European club if he was there currently with these kind of results ?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Surely the "even" is unnecessary? If he doesn't keep his job then of course he won't have any control!

 

[Alex99]

Surely the "even" is unnecessary? If he doesn't keep his job then of course he won't have any control!

Turns out the only reason he agreed to take the job is because we gave him control of transfers until he died.

 

[mu4c_20le]

He's barely had a chance to play, but apparently now we're calling a signing "daft" for the simple reason that we didn't like it. It does matter how you look at it, because most of the rational world judges a transfer according to the output on the pitch, but you're ahead of the curve I suppose

Most of the educated world can also read beyond the first sentence.

 

[FortunaUtd]

Nobody is saying this. It's moreso the other way round - they don't rapidly decline after 50yo and achieve less success.

Nobody is arguing that? Please tell me who is and point out their posts that suggest that?

Let me boil it down to a statement relevant to this thread:
We are more likely to win our next treble by hiring 44 year old De Zerbi than we are by hiring 50 year old Frank.

 

[Redstain]

Surely the "even" is unnecessary? If he doesn't keep his job then of course he won't have any control!

I think the more critical conversation is hypothetically if the manager doesn't have significant control over transfers, why would we assume him to be potentially successful when during the period of him having liberty to pick targets there's still been insufficiency with implementing players successfully into the starting 11.

Doesn't make sense the way I see it, it's giving a coach less autonomy but expecting things to work out because data and scouts are in place but ultimately it's always going to the managers pedigree to woven the players into the line up tactically and by way of instruction. I don't think this new structure will exalt the manager beyond their capacity I think it will isolate their insufficiencies more profoundly, it takes a successful manager to determine a successful structure.

 

[Roux]

Let me boil it down to a statement relevant to this thread:
We are more likely to win our next treble by hiring 44 year old De Zerbi than we are by hiring 50 year old Frank.

Odd statement. Nobody would dispute this or has made this comparison.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Let me boil it down to a statement relevant to this thread:
We are more likely to win our next treble by hiring 44 year old De Zerbi than we are by hiring 50 year old Frank.

I’ll be honest I’ve no idea what you’re trying to get from this and the good part of the discussion has long since left the station.