What makes a successful manager.....?

[david in sweden]

well. I'm leaving aside the Prems top 6 who are Euro sides by now.

But looking at stats. for managers and I have defined SUCCESS as:

 

(1) made a reasonable showing in CCC and /or

(2) got to the Prem. and /or survived (for a while anyway).

 

The list (mostly English incidentally) was;

Sam Allardyce, Tony Pulis, Tony Mowbray, Alan Irvine,Owen Coyle, Steve Coppell, Phil Brown, Gary Megson, Alan Curbishley, Alan Pardew and 'appy 'Arry R.

 

What do they have in common: ? I have to generalise a bit, BUT..

 

1) Most played 300-500 games. Many of them for several lower league sides.

2) Few of them got international caps.

3) Most of them can be described as " journeyman " players.

4) Most of them spent time as assistant to a better known name manager.

5) Few of them had ever played in Prem / old Div.1 teams.

 

6) allowing for exceptions, I could add George Burley and Martin O'Neill.

and Roy Hodgson (who was a C. Palace reserve, and non-league player) but managed most successfully in Sweden, and later in 7 other lands.

 

Coppell of course did play for Man.Utd and (England over 40 times)

and O'Neill had an impressive record for N.I.

 

**********

However the overall picture is of hard-working, lower league players, who got few honours and later served as Coach / Asst. to a big name in a large club.

NOT that I'm suggesting any of these, but the overall stats.are interesting to consider when we are looking so many other names.

[RonManager]

Agreed

[Spades]

winning games

[Webby]

Winning 50% of your games.

[batterseasaint]

And you can add Wenger, Ferguson and Mourinho to the list of managers without top level playing experience. But if you are after attributes of what makes a good manager, I always think the following are pretty important:

 

- a bit of intelligence. It may come as a surprise to you to hear this, but not all footballers are blessed with rapier-like intelligence. So those that can display a little bit of perceptiveness can easily spot things tactically which others don't. Also it is constantly a source of enormous frustration to me that some of the more obvious things are not spotted by lesser managers. A good example: it is clear that the best teams are differentiated by the talent they have in their side. But not all teams can afford that talent, nor hone it in players that don't have that God-given ability. So how can the manager plug that gap? Seems simple to me, but you basically make your team the best in what you can affect. Ie. you make them as fit as possible, so they can run quicker and for longer than the opposition. I am amazed at the number of managers who fail to spot this.

 

- An attention to detail. Advantages in sport hinge on tiny things. Whether it be noticing a particular player on the opposition is less effective when pushed on to his left hand side, or eating pasta 3 hours before the game rather than 2 so the players don't feel sluggish come warm-up time. Whatever it may be. David Moyes is a fantastic exponent of this.

 

- Ability to use new methods of preparing players. I have played a bit of sport in my time at various levels, to varying degrees of success. And what I do know is that if I don't believe I am going to succeed, I generally don't. And on many an occasion has doubt crept into my mind actually while performing, and invariably that signifies the end for me. It is clear to me that at Saints, we have had a losing mentality for far too long now, and I know that is bred from losing, but I am quite sure that there must be available methods to instill confidence in players, and any manager in this day and age needs to embrace that.

 

Those 3 are the major ones I can think of right now, and largely seem to have been lacking in our last glut of managers since WGS. Anyone think of any other attributes they would like to see in a manager?

[sussexsaint]

Getting the players fit and playing tactics appropriate to the opposition and league they are in.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Lawrie Mac.

[aintforever]

I don't think it's a case of top players don't usually make good managers, more a case of it not mattering if you were a great player or not. There is naturally going to be more average players in management simply because there are more average players around.

 

Experience is obviously important, it makes sense that players who have been journeymen and played in different leagues have a more rounded experience.

 

There is no set formular, personality and understanding of the game is very important though IMO.

[derry]

The good manager, apart from the fitness, respect and a modicum of fear from the players has to have a non technical side to his make up.

 

For me the magic ingredient is the ability to put a team together. The really successful manager whatever the level can see the strong and weak points of his players.

 

He then plays a system that complements the strengths of the team and covers any defects. A balanced team is all important and immensely efficient.

 

The overall team ethic and putting only square pegs in square holes, something we have failed to do, is the key. It is to make the overall team better than the players in the team, such as Reading three years ago.

 

If we can find a manager with this ability we will succeed. This is the same reason that technical coaches almost never succeed, they are too wrapped up in the technical aspects of the game and their clever system which they are unable to get the players to succeed in playing.

 

They always try and shoehorn square pegs into round holes to protect their system. The clever manager would not do this.

 

Of course the technical aspects, dead ball situations, individual coaching etc is important but as part of the overall scheme of things.

 

A good example of allying the technical coach to the manager is Wenger but he is pretty unique, however he is manager first and coach second.

[Dalek2003]

Why is it that many of the best managers are Scottish ?, apart from Burley, who did have his day at Ipswich ?

[doughnutman]

Why is it that many of the best managers are Scottish ?, apart from Burley, who did have his day at Ipswich ?

 

This question is considered and sort of answered in these two ariticles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8103414.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1372426.stm

HTH

[speculator]

well. I'm leaving aside the Prems top 6 who are Euro sides by now.

But looking at stats. for managers and I have defined SUCCESS as:

 

(1) made a reasonable showing in CCC and /or

(2) got to the Prem. and /or survived (for a while anyway).

 

The list (mostly English incidentally) was;

Sam Allardyce, Tony Pulis, Tony Mowbray, Alan Irvine,Owen Coyle, Steve Coppell, Phil Brown, Gary Megson, Alan Curbishley, Alan Pardew and 'appy 'Arry R.

 

What do they have in common: ? I have to generalise a bit, BUT..

 

1) Most played 300-500 games. Many of them for several lower league sides.

2) Few of them got international caps.

3) Most of them can be described as " journeyman " players.

4) Most of them spent time as assistant to a better known name manager.

5) Few of them had ever played in Prem / old Div.1 teams.

 

6) allowing for exceptions, I could add George Burley and Martin O'Neill.

and Roy Hodgson (who was a C. Palace reserve, and non-league player) but managed most successfully in Sweden, and later in 7 other lands.

 

Coppell of course did play for Man.Utd and (England over 40 times)

and O'Neill had an impressive record for N.I.

 

**********

However the overall picture is of hard-working, lower league players, who got few honours and later served as Coach / Asst. to a big name in a large club.

NOT that I'm suggesting any of these, but the overall stats.are interesting to consider when we are looking so many other names.

 

I think you can say an individual who initially did not have a high profile reputation to trade off and therefore had to rely on his hard work to earn them the breaks. Even the likes of Ferguson, Wenger and the Special One had ordinary backgrounds.

 

You can always highlight exceptions but otherwise I think you have hit on a sound theory. Might also explain why Scotland has introduced the world to some great managers over the years.

[SFC Forever]

The better players tend to earn more and several retire and go on to non football ways of earning. The lower paid journeymen are still looking for their big payday and have to keep working. Plus as stated previously there are more inferior quality players about to pick from.

[david in sweden]

I think you can say an individual who initially did not have a high profile reputation to trade off and therefore had to rely on his hard work to earn them the breaks. Even the likes of Ferguson, Wenger and the Special One had ordinary backgrounds.

 

You can always highlight exceptions but otherwise I think you have hit on a sound theory. Might also explain why Scotland has introduced the world to some great managers over the years.

 

 

I tried to find a common denominator and it seems to be that formula.

Many of these men took a long time to succeed - not due to lack of skill, or tactics but the lack of funding . (heard that story before)!

 

Seems like the working class hero type fit the bill.

[lordswoodsaints]

One that doesn't manage saints.

[yorkie]

A good manager can get the best out of an average squad of players. It's not about the individual - it's all about the balnace and the team.

Fitness is an issue, mixing it up - sometime direct sometimes and patient build up with intricate passing. Changing tactics to suit the opposition - we've been much too predictable in recent years and hence easy to beat.

Playing to your strengths depending on who is on form, fit and scoring goals (or saving them).

I think as punters we all know the answers - but we see a very small snapshot of a footballers week. Training and commitment are just as important - but what's done on the training pitch is not always repeated on the day of the big match.

I think it is important but not essential the chosen one has played the game at this level - not at the top level. I think he also needs to have something about them - I'd call it charisma - but leadership that inspires the TEAM to do or die for the fans.

Am I asking too much?

It is after all what every supporter wants.

A team that is united in the desire to win at any cost - dropping points is not an option. All too frequently a draw was seen as a good result, I never see settling for a share of the spoils as acceptable. Our managers have been only too happy to accept a point when three have gone begging.

So a good manager is...one that wins more than he loses - and cuts out the draws! It's simple win one lose one is better than two draws. Win your home games, try to win your away games (and usually you will) and not go for the draw! Be cavalier away from home and focused at home. Fotress SMS must happen this year...many clubs will never have played in such a big stadium - it should be the fear factor, not "Oh this is nice"!

[Miltonaggro]

Picking up on Yorkie's point about charisma; this is a very important aspect. In any walk of life our mentors must be credible (unfortunately, many of us have had experience of the 'paper tiger' boss), and the more successful Saints managers in recent years have all had strong careers as international footballers (WGS, Hoddle, Ball). I remember Marsden saying that in Hoddle's first training session he took part in the six-a-side and totally dazzled them, and that after that he had grabbed the attention and respect of the players immediately. McMenemy had a large physical presence and the ego and confident personality to go with it (almost Fergusonesque at his peak), and the nous to build his sides with experienced players, listen to them regarding tactics, and use them as a conduit for his aspirations - inevitably this led to fallouts, but it hit more than it missed. In many ways Mcmenemy was almost a Director of Football and Head of Marketing with his seniors acting as mini-managers for team affairs.

 

In the current situation, the likes of Keegan, WGS, and Hoddle would grab the attention and imagination of the players and fans immediately. Pearson would seem to be another good choice as he made a lot of friends at SMS during his sojourn, and is a big presence and a decent man with good contacts in the game. Whoever is chosen charisma will be an important attribute for both the players and the fans.

 

Exciting times...

[Window Cleaner]

Good players, nothing more nothing less, players with ability that can be brought on and players who are the finished product. Even the best managers can do absolutely f-all with bad, undisciplined and stupid players.

Look at us last season.

We have some bad players who cannot discipline their lives and can't obey the simple instructions of the manager, hopefully all that is about to change.

[yellow&blue]

Look at what David Moyes has achieved at Everton - he is one of the best managers IMO

[Dalek2003]

Agree. A manager has to have the respect of the players. Hoddle, Ball and WGS did.

Sturrock does in the Lower leagues but did not in the Premier. We made a bad mistake appointing Sturrock in 2004.

This was something that a few fans did not realise when they put their own selfish vindictiveness before the good of the club.