So Gary Monk got the boot

[Hansern]

Yeah, the manager is a factor. Usually a rather small one, given that most managers are just "OK". And no manager is good enough or influential enough to overcome negatives in ALL of the other factors.

Klopp is a better manager than Rodgers, yeah. We all know that. But if managers were THAT important and influential, then one could start to make a case for Claudio Ranieri being a better manager than Klopp. He's top of the league! With Leicester.

Yeah, well that goes without saying. Due to the investment in football the playing field isnt fair at all besides between some of the top teams. So winning something makes it extremely difficult bar a cup run etc.
But when you look at the clubs battling relegation, a managers quality could see you avoid relegation instead of going down.
That has happened several times.

On the last point. No, you cant.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Yeah, I agree. But according to him he could manage Barcelona. So in other words we could change around every manager in the league and the table would look exactly the same. It wouldnt. Cause they make a difference. But obviously that is just part of the full story. Finances, players, infrastructure, coaching staff etc etc

I think the argument is more about how much of the full story managers actually are. I think it's a lot less than you seem to be making out(and probably a little more than Ross is saying). The Monks case kinda proves it. It's apparent now that he wasn't actually the reason for them doing so well last season, it was likely other factors, proven by his poor performance this year.

 

[manwithnoname]

Yeah, well that goes without saying. Due to the investment in football the playing field isnt fair at all besides between some of the top teams. So winning something makes it extremely difficult bar a cup run etc.
But when you look at the clubs battling relegation, a managers quality could see you avoid relegation instead of going down.
That has happened several times.

On the last point. No, you cant.

You mean a manager like Avram Grant, who you claim isn't poor, but "average", and relegated two clubs in succession.

 

[Hansern]

I think the argument is more about how much of the full story managers actually are. I think it's a lot less than you seem to be making out(and probably a little more than Ross is saying). The Monks case kinda proves it. It's apparent now that he wasn't actually the reason for them doing so well last season, it was likely other factors, proven by his poor performance this year.

Heh, your using the Monk case with the exact same logic. I dont think he was the sole reason for them doing so well last season, but he was certainly one of the factors. What factors did influence them doing so well last season, compared to this one?

I havent stated how much I think managers matter but I dont agree with Ross in saying they dont matter at all. They're not the be or all or nothing. But certainly more than what he thinks.
They're a factor in the whole equation, along with everything else that has been posted earlier.

 

[Arn]

Monk isn't a big factor. The board decides the tactics and how they play at Swansea. Every manager at Swansea must agree to play in the same way and use almost the same tactics. The board run the club that way. Every manager the last 10 years or so have played the same way and used almost the same tactics. When they sack the manager they don't need to start all over again because they will play in the same way and use almost the same tactics whatever manager they have in charge.

 

[Hansern]

You mean a manager like Avram Grant, who you claim isn't poor, but "average", and relegated two clubs in succession.

Thats two seasons out of a 29 year long managerial career. Does those two years define him as a manager?
If so I can see your not so thought trough logic with Ranieri and Leicester.

Pulis have done this a fair few times. A manager over here that I had the pleasure of playing under have "saved" something like 4 clubs in the top division from getting relegated.
There are probably loads of other examples for both sides of the story, but I cant be bothered.

 

[cloggypop]

It's quite obvious that the main factor why Swansea declined is that they are missing Wilfried Bony who is boss.

 

[manwithnoname]

Monk isn't a big factor. The board decides the tactics and how they play at Swansea. Every manager at Swansea must agree to play in the same way and use almost the same tactics. The board run the club that way. Every manager the last 10 years or so have played the same way and used almost the same tactics. When they sack the manager they don't need to start all over again because they will play in the same way and use almost the same tactics whatever manager they have in charge.

If he's not a big factor, and the board decides the tactics and how they play, which never changes, why have they bothered sacking Monk and why are they near the relegation zone?

 

[manwithnoname]

Thats two seasons out of a 29 year long managerial career. Does those two years define him as a manager?
If so I can see your not so thought trough logic with Ranieri and Leicester.

Pulis have done this a fair few times. A manager over here that I had the pleasure of playing under have "saved" something like 4 clubs in the top division from getting relegated.
There are probably loads of other examples for both sides of the story, but I cant be bothered.

Well, he's never managed anywhere else of note, unless you count Israel, the serbian league or Ghana. Which nobody does.

And when he amazingly lucked into the Chelsea job, a position in which even Roberto Di Matteo managed to win a trophy, he lost every final and finished second in the league. A monkey would have won at least one of them.

 

[Arn]

If he's not a big factor, and the board decides the tactics and how they play, which never changes, why have they bothered sacking Monk and why are they near the relegation zone?

Probably because he isn't that great motivating players. Something they couldn't know when he got the job.

 

[Oliver Twist]

Probably because he isn't that great motivating players. Something they couldn't know when he got the job.

He motivated them to their highest ever league position last year.

Football is ridiculously fickle.

 

[Arn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...s-think-they-have-to-spend-but-they-dont.html

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Heh, your using the Monk case with the exact same logic. I dont think he was the sole reason for them doing so well last season, but he was certainly one of the factors. What factors did influence them doing so well last season, compared to this one?

I havent stated how much I think managers matter but I dont agree with Ross in saying they dont matter at all. They're not the be or all or nothing. But certainly more than what he thinks.
They're a factor in the whole equation, along with everything else that has been posted earlier.

I don't think he says they don't matter at all, just that they matter very little in most cases, but anyway, that's for him to clarify.

Swansea have finished 8th, 12th, 9th, and 11th in the past four seasons. Between, Monk, Laudrup and Rodgers, they didn't do much better or worse. That suggests Monk didn't do an usually good job last year(and wasn't doing that much worse this year). I reckon they'll end up in roughly the same spot at the end of the season, somewhere between 8th and 12th.

 

[jan]

2011-12 Alan Pardew and Newcastle have the best start to a season for nearly 20 years. Alan Pardew wins Premiership manager of the year and LMA manager of the year after Newcastle qualify for Europe. He signs an 8 year extension

I completely forgot about that. Hahaha

 

[Hansern]

I don't think he says they don't matter at all, just that they matter very little in most cases, but anyway, that's for him to clarify.

Swansea have finished 8th, 12th, 9th, and 11th in the past four seasons. Between, Monk, Laudrup and Rodgers, they didn't do much better or worse. That suggests Monk didn't do an usually good job last year(and wasn't doing that much worse this year). I reckon they'll end up in roughly the same spot at the end of the season, somewhere between 8th and 12th.

Well, Monk got appointed in Feb 14.
They finished 12th that season.
Next season (14/15) they pick up nearly 30% more points and finished 8th.

Monk was obviously one of the factors behind this.

Cloggy is right though. They replaced Bony with Eder and spent 8 mill before this season.
If Huw Jenkins thought they would do just as well without investment then I feel for Monk.

He's young and certainly have made some mistakes. But he'll have a good managerial career elsewhere.

 

[Hansern]

Anyway, everyone have a nice weekend.
I'm off to get pissed at an office party and hopefully sleep with one of the hot secretaries.

 

[the count]

Anyway, everyone have a nice weekend.
I'm off to get pissed at an office party and hopefully sleep with one of the hot secretaries.

Typical @Hansern getting things wrong again.
You are meant to shag them, not sleep with them.

 

[cloggypop]

Typical @Hansern getting things wrong again.
You are meant to shag them, not sleep with them.

He knows hot scando secretaries.

He's probably getting things right.

 

[Hansern]

Typical @Hansern getting things wrong again.
You are meant to shag them, not sleep with them.

Ha! I'm not gonna get this wrong 😉

 

[the count]

Ha! I'm not gonna get this wrong 😉

Has the deed been done already?
Respect!
Now you can get totally pissed.
🙂

 

[Mamma Mia]

Is Avram Grant another one of these rare exceptional managers that can affect results more than most?