[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43270.msg1237491#msg1237491 date=1293189084]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=43270.msg1237410#msg1237410 date=1293170596]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43270.msg1237056#msg1237056 date=1293097283]
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=43270.msg1237036#msg1237036 date=1293094004]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43270.msg1237027#msg1237027 date=1293091281]
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
[/quote]
Who's better, who's best?
[/quote]
Both of them are poor managers.
[/quote]
Hahaha... I'll assume you're taking the piss.
[/quote]
If there was a pie chart breakdown of what you need to be successful the smallest slice of that pie would be a good manager.
More important are a high wage bill, the flexibility to add to that wage bill via transfer spending, a good squad, a good coaching staff and luck. When you've got all those in place you'll be thought of as a good manager. Much like Benitez was in his early years, when he sacked the seemingly good coaching staff and money dried up and we were relying on his managerial ability - we finished 7th.
At Inter he had a good squad, a massive wage bill, but no financial flexibility and he brought his shit coaching team with him. When his managerial ability needed to come to the fore - he gets sacked for being fucking rubbish. It was a better job to walk into than the Liverpool one, and him and Roy have done similarly this year.
To illustrate the point further at Chelsea the difference between apparently one of the worst managers in the Premiership, Avram Grant and the greatest manager in the game at the moment was one place in the league in favour of Mourinho, but Grant was a penalty shootout away from a CL win, whereas Mourinho only ever got to the semi final. Not a huge difference.
Are we supposed to believe that if Chelsea had been luckier and won the penalty shoot out that year that Avram Grant is a great manager ?
[/quote]
Wow. You'd make an awful historian. I like how you add a parameter called luck so that you can explain away any other inconsistencies with your model, and are comfortable to ignore the feedback loop between good management and money. For instance, Benitez enjoyed quite a bit of money that his great management in the CL produced, and he enjoyed more money at Liverpool, because he had succeeded at a former club with less money, and a previous club with less before that.
It's true that the great managers are surrounded by a very healthy situation, otherwise they wouldn't have enjoyed their tenure and success. They gain increasing amounts of power to determine the staff around them over time though, if they continue to succeed with their "smallest slice of the pie".
There are also tipping points in football, such that all other things being equal, success on the field has a multiplier effect. Liverpool's consistent success in the first few years of Benitez elevated the clubs status on every level, not only did it increase the winnings of the club through tournament success, it brought more money in from sponsors, brought more attention to the club, increased sales, etc, all which enable the club to purchase higher quality players more easily.
And of course, we know why you have luck in there, it's so you can discount the things which Benitez has accomplished which easily make him a better manager than Hodgson. We know your bias on this count by now, but I have to say yet again that I find it wierd that you are willing to discount an achievement which was the single most enjoyable thing that happened to the club in recent memory.
