[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43409.msg1242966#msg1242966 date=1294183777]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=43409.msg1242906#msg1242906 date=1294175510]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=43409.msg1242879#msg1242879 date=1294174696]
I've no idea how ferguson has been so successful for so long, especially as managers have no control over a teams performance apparently.
[/quote]
I'm still waiting for rosco to explain what he meant by that as he couldn't have been serious.
[/quote]
Well I'm misquoted all the time, and in a different way every time too, so I might as well set it straight.
I think you need a combination of factors to improve a team or have success. The ability to spend on transfers, the ability to have a high wage bill and to be able to add to it when necessary, a good squad, luck and a good manager.
When a team improves people usually immediately credit the manager, when most of the time the success comes off the back of spending heavily, and increasing the wage bill significantly. Look at Harry Redknapp at Portsmouth and Spurs. Martin O'Neill at Villa. Steve Bruce at Sunderland. Man City. Chelsea. Leeds. Us.
When the money runs out you see how good the management and decision making has been, and currently is. Fergie and Wenger stand head and shoulder above everybody else in the Premiership. Fergie's financial advantage disappeared a couple of years into the Glazer takeover and he still won titles after that. Wenger has a negative net spend over the last decade and his team has never been out of the top four. Good managers can work successfully even when there are financial restrictions.
Once the money ran out in Leeds they fell to pieces, as did Pompey. It's happening to a lesser degree at Chelsea, at Villa and at Liverpool. It will happen at Sunderland soon, given Niall Quinn's warnings.
At LFC right now - we've got a high wage bill (top four) but spent poorly, and not much room to add to it. I personally think our transfer funds are limited right now and will be for another year or so. We may be able to find 15m to spend but we know it's not enough and we still need to do some wage bill juggling while we spend it.
So without the financial flexibility we need and a good squad, I think any new manager's impact is going to be limited. I'd rather see the new manager taking over once we clear out some of the rubbish and free up some money.
The initial study I quoted found that there was no statistical evidence to show that managers have any significant impact on a team's finishing place in the league. Gerry A Trick seems to have been the only one to pick up on the fact that just because there is no clear supporting statistical evidence it does not mean managers make no difference. A few of them do.
I still expect everyone to misprepresent this. So go right ahead.
[/quote]
good post ros but I don't agree.
I've seen good squads win bugger all (real, chelsea before josé)
I've seen mediocre squads punch above their weight.
now whilst I agree there are factors like money spent, wage bill, injuries, etc I still think THE important cog in the machine is the manager.
Look at the money chelsea have spent and manu have spent before and during rafa's term as manager and but for a home and away win against stoke we would have been champions. Small margins. given the size and depth of our squad we had no right to reach two european finals in 3 years. all this, down to the manager.
I think a competent manager would have taken the exact same squad we posess and minimum would have had us near the top 4th. I don't think a top manager can be underestimated but I do agree that wage bills and transfer funds play a huge part as well but the manager is difference between success and failure.
forget club level and look at international level, a manager has huge influence on the destiny of an international side despite teams being filled with the cream that country has to offer. in the last world cup ultimately the international side with the best squad won (spain) but a side with a modest squad (holland) was guided all the way to the final. surely if it were a simple case of strength in depth the final of argenina v spain would have been a formality?
