Managers that changed teams
- Thread starter Silver Sean
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
This thread is going so much better than the one I started about the Liverpool Legends Malaysia Cup triumph.
Not a manager, but an honorary mention for:
Consultants that changed teams:
-- Shebby Singh
Premier League to Championship and nearly to League One. Maybe he'll succeed in that second step next season.
Consultants that changed teams:
-- Shebby Singh
Premier League to Championship and nearly to League One. Maybe he'll succeed in that second step next season.
I thought Scotland invented it...
I came in here to say that. Although Micky Adams also requires some credit as the team were bottom of Div 3 when he took over and he got them promoted by signing a couple of free transfers. He was very unfortunate to be sacked for Keegan, but the club were probably right in doing so as it drastically raised their prestige.
Klopp, Wenger, Antonio Conte, Vicente del Bosque
I don't know about that.
I think much of the style of play is simply inherited from Bareclona.
For all the talk of Spain having an abundance of talent waiting in the wings at youth level, it will be pretty interesting to see what happens when the influence of Xavi and Iniesta begins to wane.
Director of Fascism?
yeah.... "also rans" who had just finished second(?) the season before under Ranieri who despite knowing he was for the boot had arranged to sign a young winger called Robben..... pish....
Kenny spent a fortune at Blackburn also and it took them a couple of seasons.
Mourinho spent the considerable cash on good players but ANY half decent manager was going to win with that squad...IMHO.
Its cold hard cash which changes the teams around IMO.
Klopp and Wenger spent very little, and were losing star players to other heavy spending teams.
At no point have I suggested that it doesn't take a huge amount of money to win the title. It does. It always has. Kenny had to get Blackburn up first. Chelsea had not won the title for 50 years or something. Ranieri would never have won it with them imo. ergo, Mourinho changed them from being not champions to being champions. It's all opinions though innit.
I would suggest that the money he spunked on Reyes, Gervinho, Chamakh, Jeffers, Baptista, Arshavin, Wiltord, Richard Wright etc is not the the actions of someone who never 'spends big'. They were all significantly expensive, and all were flops. The man has not won anything for 8 years but still the press refuse to give him a hard time. For every Henry and Viera there's an expensive flop, just like every other manager of a big team.
I'll repeat the line.
There's no evidence that in the Premiership, when equalising for other factors, that managers make any positive difference to their team. Ferguson and Wenger being the exceptions. And it's thought that they make their difference through shrewd purchases and sales.
The fact that the vast majority of examples people are citing come before the Premiership era is telling, and not surprising since the differences in money were such back then that managers were more important. Before the Premiership teams split gate receipts, there were no major tv deals or sponsorship deals which created such massive inequality that exists now. And there was no need to have any qualifications to become a manager.
Nowadays with the coaching badges that everyone has to take there's less of a difference between managers. Now that all the backroom teams are full of qualified professionals to deal with every aspect of the game , there's less a manager can and needs to bring to the table - particularly in terms of preparing a team.
You'll most often find that a teams rise coincides with increases in spending on wages and transfers. Which is not the slightest bit surprising.
There's no evidence that in the Premiership, when equalising for other factors, that managers make any positive difference to their team. Ferguson and Wenger being the exceptions. And it's thought that they make their difference through shrewd purchases and sales.
The fact that the vast majority of examples people are citing come before the Premiership era is telling, and not surprising since the differences in money were such back then that managers were more important. Before the Premiership teams split gate receipts, there were no major tv deals or sponsorship deals which created such massive inequality that exists now. And there was no need to have any qualifications to become a manager.
Nowadays with the coaching badges that everyone has to take there's less of a difference between managers. Now that all the backroom teams are full of qualified professionals to deal with every aspect of the game , there's less a manager can and needs to bring to the table - particularly in terms of preparing a team.
You'll most often find that a teams rise coincides with increases in spending on wages and transfers. Which is not the slightest bit surprising.
How do you equalise other factors?
So, to use an example, when we appointed Rafa he made no positive difference to the team.
I could have sworn Houllier didn't get us to the Champions League Final.
Another example, Jose Mourinho didn't make any positive difference to Chelsea when appointed.
Could have sworn they hadn't won the league in 50 years.
Or... Rednapp at spur, or Gollum at Everton or O'Neil at Birmingham, or... Well.... Lots more.
Your argument has more gaping holes in it than the sort of granny that gives Wayne Rooney a massive boner.
I'm just interested to see if this is your interpretation of the words as opposed to the accepted meaning, like we had with your definition of what constitutes an athlete.
My definition is correct, I can see how it would cause you difficulties given you think all footballers are the same speed.
Maths I'd imagine
You see, I don't think you can truly equalise all other factors in this case, you can make a decent stab at it, but it's impossible to replicate scenarios to do it. You're doing what you try to get others not to do, basing findings on statistics that are probably not the best ones. I think you may have an element of truth in what you say, but there are other factors that are being ignored.
Or more to the point, what correction factors are you applying?
- Status
