Do mangers 'peak...'

[Squiggles]

in a similar vein to players?

Is there a time when they are absolutely smashing it and then a time later in their career where their ideas become stale and insignificant. Compare Benitez and Wenger at the start to the end? Was that really all about circumstance?

I ask because there, to me at least, appears managers are immune to form themselves and that's only an attribute linked to a player. A good manager is seen as a good manager because he won trophies 6 years ago. Is that right?

 

[cloggypop]

Mangers are more likely to trough.

 

[StevieM]

Managers don't make any difference.

How can you not know this?

 

[Rosco]

Mangers peak around Christmas I think.

Managers though, I don't think they do. I think they burn out probably in their fifties because of the hours and stress of the job.

I think managers have a level of ability that remains fairly consistent throughout their career and the difference in results is largely defined by the quality of the squad and luck rather than the managers decisions throughout the season. Otherwise Rodgson was shite, great,then shite again - which probably means he has some mental disorder.



And the reason the majority don't make a difference is because they get as much wrong as they get right, so it balances itself out.

 

[Silver Sean]

Ferguson was great at Aberdeen, shit at the scum for 5 years, then pretty much great (how that sticks in the craw) for about another 20 years. It seems to me it's more about being able to constantly evolve and not get stuck. Wenger changed modern day football in this country then the other top teams caught up, overtook and now he's looking like an anachronism.

 

[gkmacca]

Some managers boom and bust. Pardew is experiencing a strange period of extra success at present, but his career in general is a classic case of a manager who builds up to a certain level then cracks (usually losing the players very rapidly in the process). Allardyce is another, as is Redknapp, Pulis and Curbishley. The limitedness of their style of management means they soon end up repeating themselves, the players stop listening and the whole thing goes into decline.

 

[Rosco]

Ferguson is obviously one of managerial greats.

But i don't get how he was shit for five years? I can understand results being shite for a few years, but that doesn't mean he was shite. If he was shite during those five years then the success that came later would have been impossible. It was the groundwork he did that made it possible.

 

[jexykrodic]

Managers climb to the peak and then they go over the hill.

Science.

 

[gkmacca]

The top managers rejuvenate themselves at regular periods by bringing in younger coaches. They can stay much the same, manage in the same style, add to their authority through winning things, whilst the coaching changes and keeps things fresh and interesting and focussed. Ginsoak was good at that (in fact you could argue that his brilliance was in realising his own limitations and counteracting them - but if Brian Kidd hadn't shocked him and left I do wonder if he'd have changed anything and it all could have gone into decline). Mourinho is pretty good at that. Wenger is so bad at delegating that he's practically conspired against himself to stall his progress in recent years.

 

[Wiberg]

Fergie finished 2nd in his first full season as manager 87/88 so... Only 88/89 was truly dreadful.

Charles Martin Edwards had the vision to provide continuity to United and keep Fergie around. Let's hope John Henry and FSG has the vision to provide that continuity as well.

 

[RedStar]

Yes they do, I firmly believe that, only the great managers sustain success over long periods. Plenty of managers win a couple of trophies early in their career and then get figured out and lack the imagination to change their game plan. We have had tons of them.

 

[jexykrodic]

Mangers are more likely to trough.

Should have got more love.

 

[tombrown]

Fergie finished 2nd in his first full season as manager 87/88 so... Only 88/89 was truly dreadful.

Charles Martin Edwards had the vision to provide continuity to United and keep Fergie around. Let's hope John Henry and FSG has the vision to provide that continuity as well.

So he finished second, and the scum fans believed their long wait for the title was nearly over.

Then he had an awful season , was in fact a serious relegation candidate until about March, United fans were saying "Tara Fergie" and odds on him getting fired were getting shorter & shorter

Sounds familiar ...maybe the Lizards should take a leaf out of the 1980 scum board's book

 

[Silver Sean]

I imagine BR is doing quite a lot of 'peaking' with his new young squeeze...

 

[Silver Sean]

So he finished second, and the scum fans believed their long wait for the title was nearly over.

Then he had an awful season , was in fact a serious relegation candidate until about March, United fans were saying "Tara Fergie" and odds on him getting fired were getting shorter & shorter

Sounds familiar ...maybe the Lizards should take a leaf out of the 1980 scum board's book

Except Ferguson had already won trophies home and abroad and broken the Old Firm monopoly before he arrived at the toilet. BR. Not so much.

 

[peekay]

Except Ferguson had already won trophies home and abroad and broken the Old Firm monopoly before he arrived at the toilet. BR. Not so much.

Yup. Ferguson's record pre-United was impressive too.

 

[tombrown]

Except Ferguson had already won trophies home and abroad and broken the Old Firm monopoly before he arrived at the toilet. BR. Not so much.

Didn't BR break the Welsh old firm duopoly (Cardiff City / Cwmbran Celtic) ?

 

[gkmacca]

I think Rodgers has the same problem as Wenger - as he likes to do it all himself, and dominate coaching, so the coaching will tire when he tires. Ginsoak could bring in McLaren and the others like a long line of coaching Dr Whos. When Ginsoak sensed players were tiring of his voice, he could delegate. Rodgers has got to keep reviving himself as a coach as well as a manager, and that's going to be very hard.

 

[localny]

Ferguson is obviously one of managerial greats.

But i don't get how he was shit for five years? I can understand results being shite for a few years, but that doesn't mean he was shite. If he was shite during those five years then the success that came later would have been impossible. It was the groundwork he did that made it possible.

Mate you're pulling the leg. Rodgers is wank laying the groundwork. Because we haven't seen the results yet. But Fergie is great because we have?

 

[localny]

Fergie finished 2nd in his first full season as manager 87/88 so... Only 88/89 was truly dreadful.

Charles Martin Edwards had the vision to provide continuity to United and keep Fergie around. Let's hope John Henry and FSG has the vision to provide that continuity as well.

So we are on course then?