How much influence does a football manager actually have on a team's results and performance ?

Stig

Full Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
2,271
First of all, let's remove Sir Alex from the question as the man was some sort of genius.

Then, I ask, "How much influence does a football manager actually have on a team's results and performance ? The quality of players purchased has to be the most significant factor on a team's success. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people on this forum could get a top 2 finish coaching either Celtic or Rangers next year, or PSG in their respective leagues next year.

Ole says he doesn't take training sessions. We have people who watch the videos of our next appointments and note tactics. We have fitness trainers, a network of scouts recommending purchases -- so other than picking the starting 11 and saying " keep it tight for the first 20 minutes then try and get into the box and shot. Keep in your positions; keep your shape.." what does a coach actually do and how do they materially affect the performance of a team ?

From a FT article.

Football does a bad job of valuing managers. Football managers are modern celebrities, yet the vast majority appear to add no value to their teams, and could probably be replaced by their secretaries or stuffed teddy bears without anyone noticing. Only a few managers, such as Sturrock and Alex Ferguson, consistently improve their teams .

Here is the full article Football’s best managers | Financial Times (ft.com) ( It is long)
 
Actually for me the biggest example of the difference a manager can make is probably Hansi flick and what he has done with Bayern after taking over a struggling team under Kovac.
 
Everything. He selects the line up, does the substitution and ask the owners who to sell and who to buy. That is why some are WC managers, some are good and other are mediocre.
 
Sorry but this is the worst thread I've seen in 2021. A manager can make or break a team.
 
Hes the most important person at the club on the footballing side.

You shouldn't be leaving aside SAF you should remember his impact and understand the importance of the manager.
 
Research by Bridgewater (2009) shows that appointing a new manager will have a positive short-term effect on team results. This is due to the fact that players will be out to try to impress their new manager to ultimately keep themselves in employment. The boost lasts for a short ‘honeymoon’ period of between 12 and 18 games after the appointment. After this period, performance of changing a manager disappears.
 
That's nonsense article. Manager is the most important position in football when it comes to the type of game the team plays.

Results and style of football is based on what they work on training ground and what they work on training ground depends on the manager and the directions he gives to his coaches.

Just see the results and style of play before and after a good manager is appointed.
 
Imagine trying to do your job without a boss. Or run your own business without a mentor.
 
I’m confused. So if Big Sam takes over from Pep at City, the style of play will stay the same and the team will remain just as successful?
 
Last edited:
Sky1981 said:
This thread is embarassing.

We, Manchester United should know first hand the effect of having a good manager.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We are the best example of the importance of the manager.
 
Football manager are important, but not necessarily in terms of what many people think.
Having quality players are more important IMO than the manager. That being said, having a manager who the players are willing to play for, a manager who can see the grand scheme of things is essential. I think stuff like style of play and tactics is the ones get overblown in related to managers
 
TheReligion said:
What was it about Rodgers that couldn't work at Liverpool though? Intriguing isn't it.
Click to expand...
Rodgers (or his coaches), at that point, was kind of shit at getting his teams to defend properly. Didn't help that he had clown-level defenders at his disposal either, obviously, but even then their defensive setup was suspect. Their attacking prowess made up for their defensive frailties, but the departure of Suarez, combined with Sturridge becoming a sicknote meant they couldn't get away with defending like relegation candidates anymore.
 
MyOnlySolskjaer said:
See Klopp after Brendan, Tuchel after Lampard, or the grand example of Ferguson after Atkinson to see the difference a manager can make.
Click to expand...

Atkinson wasn't doing that badly but his team was on its tail end. And Ferguson wasn't exactly a raving instant success. Even I thought he should have been sacked for the inconsistency. At best we were a cup team. Then...
 
sglowrider said:
Atkinson wasn't doing that badly but his team was on its tail end. And Ferguson wasn't exactly a raving instant success. Even I thought he should have been sacked for the inconsistency. At best we were a cup team. Then...
Click to expand...

The point is only Sir Alex could have done what he did. The influence a manager provides has a massive bearing on results.
 
Waiting on a What influence does scoring goals have on a team’s success
 
reelworld said:
Football manager are important, but not necessarily in terms of what many people think.
Having quality players are more important IMO than the manager. That being said, having a manager who the players are willing to play for, a manager who can see the grand scheme of things is essential. I think stuff like style of play and tactics is the ones get overblown in related to managers
Click to expand...
How so ? Style of play and tactics are part of the grand scheme of things and what makes some manager more recognized than others.
Zidane's Madrid won 3 CL but most will tell you that they weren't as good as Pep's Barca, and that's because style of play and tactics (which made the Barca team so dominant) has a lot to do with it.

And the manager is more important than having quality players (though it helps a lot to have them) IMO because they're teams out there with quality players but who aren't actually playing great football .
 
Sometimes very minimal, sometimes enormous. Depends on the team & the circumstances. We would not have overtaken Chelsea in the mid-2000s without Sir Alex, no way.
 
Sometimes it can be minimal due to the player personalities. Im not sure how much influence Abram Grant or Di Matteo had at Chelsea for example. I think the team was full of leaders
 
Manager, or head coach? The role is changing and its importance is being diluted. Perhaps that's why the role isn't as likely to be perceived nowadays as all-encompassing and as influential to results.
 
Drawfull said:
Pretty sure Fergie was quoted post-match once saying his influence was no more than 10%.
Click to expand...

Fergie could underestimate himself sometimes which led him to pick Moyes as his successor.

That quote is also possibly him being modest and a way of praising his players.
 
footballistic orgasm said:
How so ? Style of play and tactics are part of the grand scheme of things and what makes some manager more recognized than others.
Zidane's Madrid won 3 CL but most will tell you that they weren't as good as Pep's Barca, and that's because style of play and tactics (which made the Barca team so dominant) has a lot to do with it.

And the manager is more important than having quality players (though it helps a lot to have them) IMO because they're teams out there with quality players but who aren't actually playing great football .
Click to expand...
Because managers could still win things if he managed to get his quality players on the same page without any special tactics or style of play. But no managers could win anything if some of his players do not trust the manager. The best manager can't win anything if he have average players, but an average manager could win things with the best players available
 
Drawfull said:
Pretty sure Fergie was quoted post-match once saying his influence was no more than 10%.
Click to expand...

If he wasn't a great manager, he would have told the truth which is that his influence was over 50%. In the case of Fergie it's even more obvious since he is the one that picked the players, that created the proper alchemy, the mentality within and around the club. For other clubs it may be different with other figures playing crucial roles but at United everything started with Fergie and his decisions.
 
Manager is the most important person in club. And football in general. The one who can make players better, whole team better and the one who can make from average team good team, from talented team top team. He is the one who is responsible for training, style, man management, pre match preparation, morale, tactics, in game decisions, etc...etc....
On the other hand, bad (non talented) manager can have best 11 in the world and still fail with them.

I don't want to bring names into this so i will leave it on this.
 
FatTails said:
I’m confused. So if Big Sam takes over from Pep at City, the style of play will stay the same and the team will remain just as successful?
Click to expand...
Shhhh, don't say that to club owners. Poor bastards don't know that anybody can do the same job so they give fortune to coaches like Klopp, Pep, Conte...
 
footballistic orgasm said:
Zidane's Madrid won 3 CL but most will tell you that they weren't as good as Pep's Barca, and that's because style of play and tactics (which made the Barca team so dominant) has a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

These people can be wrong.

People overrate style and tactics, especially when they're novel, because style and tactics are things they can see with their own eyes and then describe in words. A lot of the work of a manager is not like that, because we are not privy to what happens in the training sessions or the dressing room or anywhere else. But just because we can't observe it doesn't mean it's less important.
 
reelworld said:
Because managers could still win things if he managed to get his quality players on the same page without any special tactics or style of play. But no managers could win anything if some of his players do not trust the manager. The best manager can't win anything if he have average players, but an average manager could win things with the best players available
Click to expand...
Non manager is winning anything without any form of tactics, and offcourse any good manager still needs atleast above average players.

Iker Quesadillas said:
These people can be wrong.

People overrate style and tactics, especially when they're novel, because style and tactics are things they can see with their own eyes and then describe in words. A lot of the work of a manager is not like that, because we are not privy to what happens in the training sessions or the dressing room or anywhere else. But just because we can't observe it doesn't mean it's less important.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you underrate them?
Football is a form of entertainment for the viewers so style will be rated highly.
 
Surely Pirlo's struggles at Juve have ended this "even me and my dog can do this at x club" nonsense?
 
Drawfull said:
Pretty sure Fergie was quoted post-match once saying his influence was no more than 10%.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the reasons he was a GOAT. He gave all credit to his players, gave all blame to himself, the referee, the fixture list, etc., and didn’t feel the need to read out his CV at every opportunity unlike Jose or Benitez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.