Premiership dominance and the importance of managers.

[Bubz27]

This popped up on my YouTube stream today and I thought it was a good watch with some key points. It's been asked in this forum how important managers even are, which I find ludicrous. And I've said for a while, City and Liverpool have the two best managers in the world, so it's no surprise they've dominated English football for 5 years and been prominent in Europe in that time too.

Please don't let this turn into a thread bashing Ole and saying he doesn't belong in that category and that's why United aren't able to compete for trophies.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Domination is obvious, money divide is exacerbated by covid. Real in trouble + Barca bankrupt, Juve fecked, Inter having a fire sale. PSG, City, Chelsea, Bayern (who basically run their league) will always be around the CL latter stages. United are the best placed club to compete with those four in my opinion - financially still strong and consistently make big signings.

For me it's logical that managers are even more important now than previously. All teams are getting much closer when it comes to fitness and physical abilities - having some tactical advantage is key for winning things. Football has changed so much - R9 used to be able to sprint past 4-5 defenders whilst dribbling, that just doesn't exist these days, everyone is fit, everyone can setup to counter and sit in with discipline.

 

[Bubz27]

Domination is obvious, money divide is exacerbated by covid. Real in trouble + Barca bankrupt, Juve fecked, Inter having a fire sale. PSG, City, Chelsea, Bayern (who basically run their league) will always be around the CL latter stages. United are the best placed club to compete with those four in my opinion - financially still strong and consistently make big signings.

But in the clip they say that money isn't/can't be the issue. PL has outspent the other leagues comfortably and consistently. The one common denominator is that there were great managers in the prem in 2007-12 and there are great managers here now.

And Chelsea weren't in the CL lattet stages when they had a poor manager and were winning the Europa League. They're back now because theyve got a good manager again.

 

[tomaldinho1]

But in the clip they say that money isn't/can't be the issue. PL has outspent the other leagues comfortably and consistently. The one common denominator is that there were great managers in the prem in 2007-12 and there are great managers here now.

And Chelsea weren't in the CL lattet stages when they had a poor manager and were winning the Europa League. They're back now because they've got a good manager again.

Money + covid I said - covid started last season and got worse this season. The teams who generally knock out the PL teams and win the CL were ones were they had a monopoly or duopoly over their leagues, still spend money and so could remain competitive with less spending (I say less spending but Real recently bought Hazard, Barca blew £200m on Dembele and Coutinho and Bayern just bully their domestic rivals for their best players + still spend a decent amount). Now they can't spend, their best players are older and is it a surprise the richest clubs are top of the pile?

Real had something crazy like 60 injuries over the season but no signings, Barca are genuinely close to bankruptcy, they didn't become terrible overnight but both teams are a far cry from the CL monsters they used to be. PL teams have always been good in the CL (bar City who have been awful) but would usually get knocked out when they came up against one of the big guns in the knock outs (Bayern, Real, Barca). They were like the gatekeepers to the CL.

I'm not following your point on Chelsea sorry? I said managers are even more important now, Chelsea would be a good example.

 

[Bubz27]

I'm not following your point on Chelsea sorry? I said managers are even more important now, Chelsea would be a good example.

You said Chelsea will always be in the latter stages of the CL. I don't know if you meant from now or historically? Because they weren't when they had poor managers.

Edit: sorry re. The rest of the post. Covid has definitely affected things. But covid wasn't around in 2007-2012, when English teams dominated then.

 

[SAFMUTD]

First thing is money, even the best managers can't compete for top titles with a decent amount of talent. Second most important thing is coaching, having those players punch above their weight which Pep and Klopp clearly do.

 

[OleBoiii]

Money obviously plays a big role, but having said that: between 2013 and 2018(?) the PL did go through a dark period in terms of European football. Domestically, Leicester won the league and Spurs even finished 2nd one year. Conte's Chelsea and Mourinho's Chelsea were nothing special, imo. I didn't really rate that City team that won in 2014 very highly either.

Pep and Klopp definitely helped bring the status of the PL back up, but I also think the level of the other teams in the PL have improved overall. Chelsea and Tottenham were nothing special in the context of the PL, but they both made a CL final. Chelsea might even win it!

 

[Bubz27]

First thing is money, even the best managers can't compete for top titles with a decent amount of talent. Second most important thing is coaching, having those players punch above their weight which Pep and Klopp clearly do.

Did you watch the video or just disagree with it?

If money was most important, surely we'd have done better these last 5-8 years? Also, Leicester didn't spend a lot to win the title and FA Cup. Tottenham had a low net spend if I recall correctly, and got to a CL final.

I'm not saying money isn't import, but history points to good coaching and management being more important.

 

[bsCallout]

You said Chelsea will always be in the latter stages of the CL. I don't know if you meant from now or historically? Because they weren't when they had poor managers.

Edit: sorry re. The rest of the post. Covid has definitely affected things. But covid wasn't around in 2007-2012, when English teams dominated then.

Di Matteo won the CL with Chelsea.
Lampard got Chelsea into CL and out of the group stages.

Not sure your theory hold up with them considering they are their worst two managers.

Top clubs tend to have top managers so you're going to generally see top managers doing well at top clubs, that's kind of obvious.

Even Moyes managed to get us into the quarters of the CL.

 

[Bubz27]

Money obviously plays a big role, but having said that: between 2013 and 2018(?) the PL did go through a dark period in terms of European football. Domestically, Leicester won the league and Spurs even finished 2nd one year. Conte's Chelsea and Mourinho's Chelsea were nothing special, imo. I didn't really rate that City team that won in 2014 very highly either.

Pep and Klopp definitely helped bring the status of the PL back up, but I also think the level of the other teams in the PL have improved overall. Chelsea and Tottenham were nothing special in the context of the PL, but they both made a CL final. Chelsea might even win it!

Pochettino and Tuchel are good managers though. They've got to CL finals with good managers. And Poch had a low net spend if memory serves, so surely that's a sign that good coaching trumps spending masses?

I'm not saying money isn't important, it definitely helps a lot. But history shows coaching is more important.

 

[SAFMUTD]

Did you watch the video or just disagree with it?

If money was most important, surely we'd have done better these last 5-8 years? Also, Leicester didn't spend a lot to win the title and FA Cup. Tottenham had a low net spend if I recall correctly, and got to a CL final.

I'm not saying money isn't import, but history points to good coaching and management being more important.

I totally agree with the video, I mean a average manager wont be succesfull even if he has the greatest squad. Its also not just about spending money, but spending it right. For glory you need a great squad with a top coach, for top 4 a great squad and average managment will do it, but a poor squad wont get top 4 even if they have the greatest manager.

 

[Bubz27]

Di Matteo won the CL with Chelsea.
Lampard got Chelsea into CL and out of the group stages.

Not sure your theory hold up with them considering they are their worst two managers.

Top clubs tend to have top managers so you're going to generally see top managers doing well at top clubs, that's kind of obvious.

Even Moyes managed to get us into the quarters of the CL.

Di Matteo is a massive outlier isn't he. But that definitely doesn't follow the general rule. Getting out of the group stages isn't dominating Europe, which is the point of the video right?

It's not my theory, it's something Carragher and Neville seemingly agreed on and something I see some logic in.

Top clubs do tend to have top managers, yes. But when they didn't (City had Pellegrini, Liverpool had Hodgson, we have had Moyes, Van Gaal, past it Jose and Ole, Chelsea had Lampard etc etc), they weren't successful on the biggest stages. When they did have top managers (City with Pep, Liverpool with Klopp, Chelsea with Tuchel) they started showing big performances in Europe again.

 

[tomaldinho1]

You said Chelsea will always be in the latter stages of the CL. I don't know if you meant from now or historically? Because they weren't when they had poor managers.

Edit: sorry re. The rest of the post. Covid has definitely affected things. But covid wasn't around in 2007-2012, when English teams dominated then.

Yes, moving forwards, sorry. City, Chelsea, PSG, Bayern for me will be constants from now on. Chelsea will continue to bob up and down into that group if they keep changing managers.

To the second part, yes managers definitely played a part but did the PL actually dominate? United were a real force back then and then Chelsea were very strong, Liverpool lost to AC but PL clubs didn't win that much (to suggest we dominated when we won 2 of 6 CLs doesn't add up to me versus La Liga winning 5/5 between 14-18 for comparison). Since then SAF retired which killed us and Chelsea have been knocked out by Bayern, Barca, PSG & Athletico. It's not like they haven't been competitive when they've been in the CL.

 

[Bubz27]

for top 4 a great squad and average managment will do it, but a poor squad wont get top 4 even if they have the greatest manager.

Interesting to think about.

 

[Bubz27]

Yes, moving forwards, sorry. City, Chelsea, PSG, Bayern for me will be constants from now on. Chelsea will continue to bob up and down into that group if they keep changing managers.

To the second part, yes managers definitely played a part but did the PL actually dominate? United were a real force back then and then Chelsea were very strong, Liverpool lost to AC but PL clubs didn't win that much (to suggest we dominated when we won 2 of 6 CLs doesn't add up to me versus La Liga winning 5/5 between 14-18 for comparison). Since then SAF retired which killed us and Chelsea have been knocked out by Bayern, Barca, PSG & Athletico. It's not like they haven't been competitive when they've been in the CL.

Ah yes, I agree then. Generally Chelsea are there or thereabouts aren't they.

I'd say the premiership was the dominant league in Europe at that time. A lot of semi finals and finals split between English teams. Moreso than any other league.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't know. There are so many variables. We were shit in the CL under Mourinho. Pep failed with Bayern in the CL. Tuchel failed with PSG, but is now in the final with Chelsea. Obviously great managers make all the differences but great managers have failed with other clubs, like Pep and Mourinho.

 

[bsCallout]

Di Matteo is a massive outlier isn't he. But that definitely doesn't follow the general rule. Getting out of the group stages isn't dominating Europe, which is the point of the video right?

It's not my theory, it's something Carragher and Neville seemingly agreed on and something I see some logic in.

Top clubs do tend to have top managers, yes. But when they didn't (City had Pellegrini, Liverpool had Hodgson, we have had Moyes, Van Gaal, past it Jose and Ole, Chelsea had Lampard etc etc), they weren't successful on the biggest stages. When they did have top managers (City with Pep, Liverpool with Klopp, Chelsea with Tuchel) they started showing big performances in Europe again.

SAF got knocked out of the groups. Moyes got quarters.
Lampard made top four and got out of the groups(who's to say how far he would have gone)
Conte came bottom of their group this year. They won the league!
Pep has fell at the same hurdle as Pelligrini with City too.

It goes without saying that generally the top managers do well, because they are managing the top teams. The top teams also generally do well because they are managed by the top managers.

It's a pretty redundant point and has proven to not be that accurate in the few instances top teams havent had top managers.

Zidane is also one we have no idea how good he is really despite winning the CL. Time will tell if he goes elsewhere. But that's a different discussion.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Ah yes, I agree then. Generally Chelsea are there or thereabouts aren't they.

I'd say the premiership was the dominant league in Europe at that time. A lot of semi finals and finals split between English teams. Moreso than any other league.

Yes I'd agree re QFs onwards, in that period, but then the PL clubs would come up against one of the gatekeeper teams I described before and normally lose. It's following a very logical progression.

So in answer to GNev and Carragher is that I agree Pep and Klopp are top managers but I don't think anyone is arguing City or Liverpool are better, for example, than peak Barca under either Pep or Enrique or Zidane's Real with Ronaldo and younger stars so the focus shouldn't be on the PL teams, it should be on why we've suddenly seen the European giants, bar Bayern, fall away so badly the last few years. PL money pot keeps flowing, PL teams keeps buying players but there's a reason Juve, Barca and Real aren't backing down from the ESL.