How much difference do you think a manager makes

We just have to look at Real when Ronnie was there as they would have won feck all if it wasn’t for Zidane!
 
Look at ManUtd from 86-2013, liverpool from 2015-2022, that's gives you the answer.
 
There is only so much a manager can do if his hands are tied or if he's hamstrung in his ability to wield change. You also have to have the right infrastructure around him or at least people willing to change the infrastructure according to his vision and assuming he knows what he is doing - he can make a huge difference i.e. Fergie/Klopp.

9 times out of 10, manager in question a) isn't good enough or b) in a bad environment so can't make the difference he can make if supported properly. This applies at football at all levels to be honest. Some clubs are just toxic.
 
I feel that would look similar to a Gaussian curve if the x-axis is the quality of the squad and y-axis is the difference the manager makes. The manager makes very little difference with very low quality squad. As the quality increases, the manager makes more of a difference until a ceiling and their difference starts decreasing for very good quality/top-tier squad. But again, this is considering all these squads are highly motivated which is very very important and a huge part of which is the manager's duty.
 
Tavern in the town said:
There was a study done saying in most cases it doesn’t actually matter who the manager is, and that there was correlation of more than 90% between a team’s league finish and it’s wage bill. The exceptions were managers like Fergie, Clough, Wenger etc. It was written a while ago so I’m not sure how true it still is.
Click to expand...
Statistically the clubs with the highest wage bills would have better managers. Anytime there’s a highly-rated newcomer he can upset the natural order for a season or two before getting recruited by one of the big guys (with rare exceptions like Simeone).

After all, this is a United forum and we see how terrible we are despite our wage bill consistently being in top-3 (usually top-2) in the league.
 
A manager is the obviously the most important part of any team as he shapes the team in his image, even in clubs where the emphasis may be on the higher management it still takes a good manager to unlock it.
Case ik point bayern munich.
 
UnitedFire said:
As things stand and assuming we have a passable transfer window, I.e. 3 starters/ regulars where do you think we'd end up in the following scenarios:

1) Under ETH
2) No manager, players have to work it out, I.e. natural leader or captain, etc
3) Reserve team coach, I.e. limited experience, basically Rangnick!
4) Ole returns
5) Best womens football manager
6) Referee turns manager, maybe Collina for example
7) Avid football fan with decent managerial experience in a non football environment - people person, modern management style
8) As above, but autocratic and authoritarian style, think old school gravitas
9) Avid football fan no managerial experience - nice guy
10) Avid football fan no managerial experience - arse hole
11) Pep
12) Klopp

On another thread I suggested a fan wouldn't do much worse than bottom half as that is over stating the impact of a manager, but am I understating the impact?
Click to expand...

1) Champions League spot, 2) lower mid-table, 3) Europa/Conference League spot, 4) ditto, 5) ditto with a caveat (sexism in football and all that stuff), 6) not sure, 7) lower mid-table, 8) controversial but upper mid-table, 9) lower mid-table, 10) relegation contenders, 11) Champions League spot, 12) ditto -- with a bit of luck maybe even a title push.

Managers are very important. The most important person in a football club.
 
Fergie could get 110% out of his players all the time. He made ordinary players believe that they were world beaters and got the very best out of them.
A top manager can do this, and it can win big games for you.
 
Ask yourself. How much of a difference your manager makes at work (if you have any or if you are one). If your organization is a proper one, having a bad manager can screw things up. If its a bad one, who cares, there is no target anyway.
 
Tavern in the town said:
There was a study done saying in most cases it doesn’t actually matter who the manager is, and that there was correlation of more than 90% between a team’s league finish and it’s wage bill. The exceptions were managers like Fergie, Clough, Wenger etc. It was written a while ago so I’m not sure how true it still is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but correlation doesn't alway imply causation does it ? A team with a high wage bill will be able to afford a top quality manager.

Having a quality manager is vital, everything flows from it, training, tactics, culture. A top manager like Pep would have our squad comfortably in 3rd, worth 15pts a year.
 
All I would say is that managers don't operate in a vacuum. The success or failure of a manager is dependent on so many factors.

In reality, I would say that the best ANY manager could have done with United post-SAF is to finish 2nd. That is because we lack the behind-the-scenes support required to score the 90+ points required to win a title nowadays against two incredibly good sides. In my opinion, our players are not good enough to win 30 games in this league.

As for the worst any manager could do...I'd say about 6th or 7th. Again, simply because our players are too good not to win some football matches.

What we have seen is that when our squad has been relatively harmonious and the players have got on well enough, we have performed reasonably well.

When there is disharmony in the squad, we have performed disgracefully. Though of course, it's hard to say whether it's the disharmony creating poor performances or the poor performances creating disharmony.

In general, I'd say a basically competent manager with a harmonious squad would have finished 2nd/3rd on a regular basis and won the odd cup with our post-SAF squads.

Where we fall down is recruitment and the handling of contracts and salaries. We haven't bought the right players, we haven't sold the right players and we have handed out contracts which have created resentment.

Therefore, I'd say it's more important that we start getting the off-field issues sorted now, and we appear to be making steps, because I think there is more than enough talent and money available at the club to basically do at least reasonably well without having to have the absolute best manager in the business.
 
Managers are important, and can be very important if they're either positive or negative outliers at the top level, but the most important factor in a team's success is the combination of resources and recruitment efficiency. That's the engine that drives success.

You could have put any manager you like in charge of the club over the last decade, including Klopp and Guardiola, and they would have achieved little or no success here as the recruitment aspect of the club was dysfunctional. Meanwhile a side like City have been able to win titles not just with Pep but also previously with Pellegrini and Mancini, neither of whom we think of as being the generational talents people sometimes imagine a club like United needs to be successful.

Basically if you have a lot of money and a top level recuitment team/structure, you will tend to be successful even without exceptional managers. You just need them to be functionally good managers at the highest level and to fit into the structures of your club.
 
sullydnl said:
Managers are important, and can be very important if they're either positive or negative outliers at the top level, but the most important factor in a team's success is the combination of resources and recruitment efficiency. That's the engine that drives success.

You could have put any manager you like in charge of the club over the last decade, including Klopp and Guardiola, and they would have achieved little or no success here as the recruitment aspect of the club was dysfunctional. Meanwhile a side like City have been able to win titles not just with Pep but also previously with Pellegrini and Mancini, neither of whom we think of as being the generational talents people sometimes imagine a club like United needs to be successful.

Basically if you have a lot of money and a top level recuitment team/structure, you will tend to be successful even without exceptional managers. You just need them to be functionally good managers at the highest level and to fit into the structures of your club.
Click to expand...

I agree overall, however I actually think we would have been successful with either of those managers because they have a clear profile of what they want from a player and how they want their teams to play.
United have left recruitment and players mainly down to the managers in charge, issue really was that after LVG, the next 2 managers were not the type you want to leave in charge of players to bring in.
 
Cassidy said:
I agree overall, however I actually think we would have been successful with either of those managers because they have a clear profile of what they want from a player and how they want their teams to play.
United have left recruitment and players mainly down to the managers in charge, issue really was that after LVG, the next 2 managers were not the type you want to leave in charge of players to bring in.
Click to expand...

They do have a clear profile in terms of how they want to play, but at both their clubs the recruitment towards that profile has still been driven by the structure around them, as directed by the likes of Begiristain and Edwards. The manager having a clear profile isn't enough, because recruitment shouldn't be left mainly down to the manager. They need help and getting that help is a massive part of why they've been successful where they are.

Taking Pep for example, there's a massive gulf between a) having an experienced DOF you've known since you were 19 years old and have previously built arguably the greatest club side of all time with and b) having no DOF at all, just Ed Woodward and whatever background structure he has cobbled together. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Pep to be a success if you completely strip him of that high-level support.
 
sullydnl said:
They do have a clear profile in terms of how they want to play, but at both their clubs the recruitment towards that profile has still been driven by the structure around them, as directed by the likes of Begiristain and Edwards. The manager having a clear profile isn't enough, because recruitment shouldn't be left mainly down to the manager. They need help and getting that help is a massive part of why they've been successful where they are.

Taking Pep for example, there's a massive gulf between a) having an experienced DOF you've known since you were 19 years old and have previously built arguably the greatest club side of all time with and b) having no DOF at all, just Ed Woodward and whatever background structure he has cobbled together. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Pep to be a success if you completely strip him of that high-level support.
Click to expand...

I overall agree with you.
I just don't think it would have stopped them from being successful here because I don't think they would have struggled to find players who fit how they wanted to play, especially with the money we spent.
Also because they both improve players a lot, so players who didn't make it here under Jose/Ole I think probably would have under them

Not saying they would have been successful because everything was running smoothly, but more because they are exceptional.

Also at Liverpool, the recruitment wasn't really working and Klopp made a big difference there, I'm sure his inputs went some way to helping that all to improve
 
The difference between Brighton under Hughton (god bless him) and Potter is stark.
 
1) Under ETH - 5th
2) No manager, players have to work it out, I.e. natural leader or captain, etc - 10th
3) Reserve team coach, I.e. limited experience, basically Rangnick! - 10th
4) Ole returns - 8th
5) Best womens football manager - 5th
6) Referee turns manager, maybe Collina for example - 10th
7) Avid football fan with decent managerial experience in a non football environment - people person, modern management style - 9th
8) As above, but autocratic and authoritarian style, think old school gravitas - 11th
9) Avid football fan no managerial experience - nice guy - 10th
10) Avid football fan no managerial experience - arse hole - 10th
11) Pep - 3rd
12) Klopp - 3rd

That being said - this is only for next season. I do think a manager that has the capability of moulding the team to his way of playing can have a larger impact over 2-3 years, yes - wage-bill and success are correlated, but IMO, that correlation is because better players command higher wages. When your competition is the best clubs in the world, wage-bill kinda gets neutralized, and factors that are responsible for marginal gains become important ... manager becomes a key factor then.
 
The Boy said:
The difference between Brighton under Hughton (god bless him) and Potter is stark.
Click to expand...

I think I've got this right, with the asterisk being in the Championship.

Houghton - 20th*, 3rd*, 2nd*, 15th, 17th
Potter - 15th, 16th, 9th.

The only real difference in league position is last season and we have yet to see to what extent that's a new level ye can maintain or if you'll drop back a bit this season.

Given the stark difference you (and most people) perceive between the quality of what the two managers have produced at Brighton, I'd argue that it underlines the relative limitations on the impact a manager is likely to have. If you were just looking at the results without knowing anything about the managerial situation I'm not sure how clear it would be that the manager changed or when that change actually happened.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
I think I've got this right, with the asterisk being in the Championship.

Houghton - 20th*, 3rd*, 2nd*, 15th, 17th
Potter - 15th, 16th, 9th.

The only real difference in league position is last season and we have yet to see to what extent that's a new level ye can maintain or if you'll drop back a bit this season.

Given the stark difference you (and most people) perceive between the quality of what the two managers have produced at Brighton, I'd argue that it underlines the relative limitations on the impact a manager is likely to have. If you were just looking at the results without knowing anything about the managerial situation I'm not sure how clear it would be that the manager changed or when that change actually happened.
Click to expand...
That ignores the difference in confidence and playing style. With Hughton in the premiership we were hanging on and always a good bet to go down, under Potter we have had clear progression and improvement.
 
The Boy said:
That ignores the difference in confidence and playing style. With Hughton in the premiership we were hanging on and always a good bet to go down, under Potter we have had clear progression and improvement.
Click to expand...

Yep it does but deliberately so because those are more subjective factors. The OP was asking where we think we'd actually finish in the league under different types of manager, so I'm framing it in line with that.

Just to be clear, I think Potter is obviously a better manager, you're a better side under him and you play much more attractive football than you did before. My point is that even with that clear an upgrade, the degree to which it actually translates into hard changes in league position is still heavily limited by resources and (by extension) recruitment. The manager can only do so much.
 
Tavern in the town said:
There was a study done saying in most cases it doesn’t actually matter who the manager is, and that there was correlation of more than 90% between a team’s league finish and it’s wage bill. The exceptions were managers like Fergie, Clough, Wenger etc. It was written a while ago so I’m not sure how true it still is.
Click to expand...

Well the law of averages is that most managers are average. Therefore, if most managers are average then their influences are fairly equal and other factors determine their success i.e. wage bill as have the better players.

Some managers will be much better than average i.e. Fergie, Clough, Wenger etc and others will be much worse.

So when you say in most cases it doesn’t actually matter who the manager is, you are saying that there is little difference between one average manager or another. This is where clubs have to try and beat the average by getting better managers but on average, the average club will get average managers so says the law of averages. Of course better than average clubs can attract better than average managers but they may only be the average of the better than average managers......
 
A good manager can't fix a bad club but a bad manager can harm a good club. Ole was a bad manager in a bad club. What matters now is not just that ETH is good but that the club is run better.
 
GazTheLegend said:
@UnitedFire put it this way, do you think Alex Ferguson didn't make a difference?
Click to expand...

There are definitely some good questions/ points raised in here.

Thinking about it from the perspective of your own manager, even outside of football, is not something I had really considered before. You can spend so much time thinking of tactics, training plans and decision making which all build respect, but ultimately if you don't like the person you'll struggle to maintain interest after a year or so or earlier if you are an impatient youngster!

SAF definitely made a difference, but he is in the top few managers of all time and influenced so many aspects of the club that he was way beyond a lot of current managers.

He really did manage to get into the top percentiles of what every player could deliver. The best managers manage individuals how they need/ want to be managed and change their style for every individual. SAF managed to do this. He was the father figure, the figurehead, the coach and everything in between.

I guess when you consider the range of what the best looks like through to the average there are definitely a fair few factors that can influence outcomes.

I guess the question now is as much focused on the difference from one manager to another, I.e. are they fairly generically decent, but few stand outs.
 
The marketplace will usually get this correct in the long run. Pep makes about 15m a year, ten Hag about 9m, Klopp about 15m, and Tuchel about 7m pounds. They would not get this type of money if the job wasn't so important.

However, the top players make more so it's easy to deduce Messi or other top players are worth more than the manager.
 
gerdm07 said:
The marketplace will usually get this correct in the long run. Pep makes about 15m a year, ten Hag about 9m, Klopp about 15m, and Tuchel about 7m pounds. They would not get this type of money if the job wasn't so important.

However, the top players make more so it's easy to deduce Messi or other top players are worth more than the manager.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting observation and obvious as well, but players bring a lot of money to a club from shirt sales, publicity etc, managers don't.
Messi and Ronaldo are exceptions, for any other player out there it's debatable.
Do you think that Liverpool's fans would take Klopp over any player they have ? or City fans with Guardiola ? I'd say yes.
If you ask a Liverpool fan what would they want tomorrow, Mbappe or Klopp, what would they choose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.