So Gary Monk got the boot

[manwithnoname]

Most Swansea managers start off really impressively. That club allows young managers a very good platform from which to work. Swansea are one of the exceptions who clearly have a very good set up behind the scenes. Leicester and Southampton are similar in that regard. The set up behind the scenes has made every manager there look like an over achiever.

Leicester nearly got relegated last season.

And what is it about the set-up at Swansea that means they "start off really impressively", and then get sacked, like the last two managers? It can't be that good a platform from which to work. Unless.....the manager's almost entirely irrelevant and it's largely about form, injuries, motivation and luck? Only one of which the manager has any control over

 

[ILD]

Am I following Roslogic here correctly? Is it safe to assume that a manager can be praised for his own personal qualities / traits that he brings to the table but it's pointless to praise him for the job he actually does?

For example a manager could be praised for being a good defensive coach, or having a history of managing big egos, or experience in avoiding relegation battles but at the end of the day the job he did at the end of season doesn't matter as he hadn't much to do with it. Other bigger factors dictate the outcome.

 

[peekay]

I think very few managers are truly great - Ferguson, Wenger. A decent number of them are truly shit. A vast majority of them have a wide range of performance ranging from great to shit depending on the circumstances - footballing infrastructure, type of players available, pure luck or randomness in terms of running into or arriving at a group of players whose qualities fit the tactics being employed, injuries etc. Pellegrini, Brendan, Rafa belong to the third category.

On another note, I dont think performance alone is the metric of a manager. Jose Mourinho might end up with three times the trophy haul as Rinus Michels, but in terms of impact on the game, there is no doubt who is a greater manager.

 

[Red Mullet]

I'm most disappointed that no one, NO ONE, has said Steve the Pirate has returned to Treasure Island.

 

[Squiggles]

Leicester nearly got relegated last season.

And what is it about the set-up at Swansea that means they "start off really impressively", and then get sacked, like the last two managers? It can't be that good a platform from which to work. Unless.....the manager's almost entirely irrelevant and it's largely about form, injuries, motivation and luck? Only one of which the manager has any control over

They have a style of play that hasn't changes much over the years and they manage to sign decent players for modest amounts. Martinez and Rodgers went onto bigger jobs, Laudrup and Monk were both widely praised during their first seasons before being found out.

 

[manwithnoname]

Am I following Roslogic here correctly? Is it safe to assume that a manager can be praised for his own personal qualities / traits that he brings to the table but it's pointless to praise him for the job he actually does?

For example a manager could be praised for being a good defensive coach, or having a history of managing big egos, or experience in avoiding relegation battles but at the end of the day the job he did doesn't matter as he hadn't much to do it. Other bigger factors dictate the outcome.

I think it's just an exaggeration of a point, in order to make one. Of course some managers can make a positive (or negative) difference to a team. They might introduce new players, tactics, training or motivation. New diets or technology. Whatever. But the actual effects are often marginal - and sometimes those count an awful lot - but there's a ton of other factors too, and the influence and effect of most managers - positively and negatively - is often understated.

So, Pep Guardiola, as recognisably good as he is, would not win the European Cup with Everton. Because the effect he could have isn't great enough to overcome the other larger financial factors

That said, if you were to ask Rosco if he wouldn't care if Liverpool was managed by Roy Hodgson or Jurgen Klopp, because the manager makes no difference, and he said he wouldn't care either way, he's a liar.

 

[manwithnoname]

I'm most disappointed that no one, NO ONE, has said Steve the Pirate has returned to Treasure Island.

He looked more like Thomas Turgoose.

 

[Rosco]

Wait, can we clear up when it is okay (safe) to praise a manager? We might need Rosco to draw up a mandate here.

So, we as football fans should NEVER praise a manager if he is currently doing what we believe is a good job? What are the rules here?

You can praise managers, particularly when you see them doing something well.
But nobody ever does that.

They look at the table. Oh so and so are doing well, manager x must be doing a great job - when they haven't a fucking notion whether the manager has actually done anything. That's how half of this site convinced themselves Rodgers was going to win the league - at the same time ignoring all the factors that actually played a big part in our second place finish - in particular the ones that wouldn't be repeated. A handful of posters pointed them out at the time.

There's never a, manager x has changed the following things, with the following results type analysis.

I could manage Barcelona this weekend and they'd win and I don't have a fucking breeze. I'd just copy the team that was picked last week and wait for the plaudits.

 

[ILD]

They have a style of play that hasn't changes much over the years and they manage to sign decent players for modest amounts. Martinez and Rodgers went onto bigger jobs, Laudrup and Monk were both widely praised during their first seasons before being found out.

Is saying they were found out not a bit OTT.

Monk received praise for being a young up and coming manager who was doing well at the time. I don't think people were lauding him to be the next GOAT.

Do we need to reserve judgement on all managers in fear of them being 'found out'?

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Wait, can we clear up when it is okay (safe) to praise a manager? We might need Rosco to draw up a mandate here.

So, we as football fans should NEVER praise a manager if he is currently doing what we believe is a good job? What are the rules here?

I think the idea is to separate what actually defines him doing a good job, from just the league table, which is much more down to the players at his disposable(obviously he'll have some influence on it too).

 

[ILD]

You can praise managers, particularly when you see them doing something well.
But nobody ever does that.

They look at the table. Oh so and so are doing well, manager x must be doing a great job - when they haven't a fucking notion whether the manager has actually done anything. That's how half of this site convinced themselves Rodgers was going to win the league - at the same time ignoring all the factors that actually played a big part in our second place finish - in particular the ones that wouldn't be repeated. A handful of posters pointed them out at the time.

There's never a, manager x has changed the following things, with the following results type analysis.

I could manage Barcelona this weekend and they'd win and I don't have a fucking breeze. I'd just copy the team that was picked last week and wait for the plaudits.

A lot of the site were aware of the factors that helped our 2nd place finish but felt Rodgers also deserved a bit of credit for over seeing the team. He helped coach the players at the time. It would be harsh to exclude him from any praise.

Are people just looking at the table and deducing that manager x is doing a good job or are you just saying that they are? Perhaps people are assessing the manager and praising him for the things they feel he is doing well at. I don't know how sincere people are being or what measures they are using to dish out praise but then again i'm not obsessed with managers. 😉

 

[Rosco]

A lot of the site were aware of the factors that helped our 2nd place finish but felt Rodgers also deserved a bit of credit for over seeing the team. He helped coach the players at the time. It would be harsh to exclude him from any praise.

Are people just looking at the table and deducing that manager x is doing a good job or are you just saying that they are? Perhaps they are assessing the manager and praising him for the things they feel he is doing well.

Well the 'assessment' never goes beyond one word or one sentence.
'good job ', 'great' etc

I would say that's a comment rather than an assessment.

And HC and Hansern have done exactly that in this very thread.

 

[ILD]

Sorry I added more to the my original point before I saw your reply but it works as reply to your last post.

 

[Rosco]

Sorry I added more to the my originally point before I say your reply but it works as reply to your last post.

The point remains. Nobody has ever pointed out anything that Monk has ever done as the reasons for thinking he is a good manager, apart from HC who said he finished 8th in the league with Swansea.

I've always said you need to separate process from results. To simply take a result, claim it the work of a great manager and rely on it going forward..... well we should know better by now.

But clearly many don't

 

[manwithnoname]

The point remains. Nobody has ever pointed out anything that Monk has ever done as the reasons for thinking he is a good manager, apart from HC who said he finished 8th in the league with Swansea.

I've always said you need to separate process from results. To simply take a result, claim it the work of a great manager and rely on it going forward..... well we should know better by now.

But clearly many don't

You can't separate process from results entirely. Results still matter.

 

[ILD]

The point remains. Nobody has ever pointed out anything that Monk has ever done as the reasons for thinking he is a good manager, apart from HC who said he finished 8th in the league with Swansea.

I've always said you need to separate process from results. To simply take a result, claim it the work of a great manager and rely on it going forward..... well we should know better by now.

But clearly many don't

Yeah but you are just so inflexible when it comes to managers. People saying a manager is doing well isn't the end of the world.

 

[Rosco]

Yeah but you are just so inflexible when it comes to managers. People saying a manager is doing well isn't the end of the world.

Even Hansern admitted someone was going over the top for calling Monk a great manager when things were going well.

He fucking made the comment that he now describes as over the top.

I'm not inflexible. I'm right.

 

[Hansern]

I think it's just an exaggeration of a point, in order to make one. Of course some managers can make a positive (or negative) difference to a team. They might introduce new players, tactics, training or motivation. New diets or technology. Whatever. But the actual effects are often marginal - and sometimes those count an awful lot - but there's a ton of other factors too, and the influence and effect of most managers - positively and negatively - is often understated.

So, Pep Guardiola, as recognisably good as he is, would not win the European Cup with Everton. Because the effect he could have isn't great enough to overcome the other larger financial factors

That said, if you were to ask Rosco if he wouldn't care if Liverpool was managed by Roy Hodgson or Jurgen Klopp, because the manager makes no difference, and he said he wouldn't care either way, he's a liar.

Good post. The "I could manage Barcelona and they'd still win" is so simplistic, and highlights the exaggerations to make a point.

 

[tony]

I think that's partly his point. They can't do much about it.

Rosco's point, made tiresomely every time we lose by the way, is that managers do not make a difference, and a teams success is solely down to the quality of the squad. Which is patently nonsense and is a hypothesis he probably gleaned .from some shite book on american football or baseball.

 

[Rosco]

Rosco's point, made tiresomely every time we lose by the way, is that managers do not make a difference, and a teams success is solely down to the quality of the squad. Which is patently nonsense and is a hypothesis he probably gleaned .from some shite book on american football or baseball.

Have you not read Soccermaniacs?

Myself and Dreambeliever wrote it

 

[tony]

You can praise managers, particularly when you see them doing something well.
But nobody ever does that.

They look at the table. Oh so and so are doing well, manager x must be doing a great job - when they haven't a fucking notion whether the manager has actually done anything. That's how half of this site convinced themselves Rodgers was going to win the league - at the same time ignoring all the factors that actually played a big part in our second place finish - in particular the ones that wouldn't be repeated. A handful of posters pointed them out at the time.

There's never a, manager x has changed the following things, with the following results type analysis.

I could manage Barcelona this weekend and they'd win and I don't have a fucking breeze. I'd just copy the team that was picked last week and wait for the plaudits.

So how will you set them up away to say Athletico?

 

[tony]

Have you not read Soccermaniacs?

Myself and Dreambeliever wrote it

Now, I don't have time, and to be honest it sounds a bit American

Come to think of it anything with the word Soccer in it should be fucking banned! it will inevitably be total total shite

 

[Rosco]

So how will you set them up away to say Athletico?

I'd do what Harrying Redknapp did.

Pick 11 players and tell them who to mark at corners.

 

[Rosco]

Now, I don't have time, and to be honest it sounds a bit American

What's wrong with America?

 

[tony]

What's wrong with America?

It's total shite mate when it comes to football, and most other things come to think of it

 

[tony]

I'd do what Harrying Redknapp did.

Pick 11 players and tell them who to mark at corners.

Haha but he's not even a manager is he?

 

[darkstarexodus]

Do we need to reserve judgement on all managers in fear of them being 'found out'?

I think it's generally prudent to reserve ALL judgment on the internet. It's why so many people on here delete posts before sending.

The Internet does not suffer judgment easily.

 

[Raz]

Well let's hope the rumours are true and Rodgers goes back to Swansea and takes the shite he filled anfield up with. And I tend to agree with Ross to a point, we will only get better once we have better players. But, we will only get those better players because we have a better manager..........hmmmmm

 

[Insignificance]

You can praise managers, particularly when you see them doing something well.
But nobody ever does that.

They look at the table. Oh so and so are doing well, manager x must be doing a great job - when they haven't a fucking notion whether the manager has actually done anything. That's how half of this site convinced themselves Rodgers was going to win the league - at the same time ignoring all the factors that actually played a big part in our second place finish - in particular the ones that wouldn't be repeated. A handful of posters pointed them out at the time.

There's never a, manager x has changed the following things, with the following results type analysis.

I could manage Barcelona this weekend and they'd win and I don't have a fucking breeze. I'd just copy the team that was picked last week and wait for the plaudits.

Without digging into the history of posts regarding managers I must say this one is just bullshit. From first to last sentence. Especially claiming you could win next game with Barca just copying the teamsheet is the Mother of all bullshit.. why do you do it to yourself?

 

[Dreambeliever]

Only a couple of months after being proclaimed as a great manager on here, after 4 weeks of the season or something.

So is this an unfair sacking of a great manager?

Wasn't there talk we might go for him after Rodgers. Strange how it all fell apart for him