Skip to main content

How much a difference does the manager make?

[This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared in the Charlton fanzine, Voice of the Valley.   Almost all references to Charlton have been excised].

In his excellent book The Football Manager: a History Neil Carter shows how managers often started out as the club secretary with the board selecting the team.  Gradually they achieved greater responsibilities.  He argues that Herbert Chapman at Arsenal was the most important figure in the development of modern football management.   The other two key pioneers were Frank Buckley at Wolves and Jimmy Seed at Charlton.

Carter points out how football and the role of the manager changed after 1992.  Success on the pitch became even more important commercially making football even more of a results business.  Managers assumed a much higher profile in the media.

In modern football the manager is generally seen as being responsible for everything that occurs on the pitch.   Whether the influence of video games plays any part is far from clear but it seems that some fans actually think the manager is controlling the movement of the players and their ability to anticipate threats and opportunities.

Football has improved

What is often overlooked is that football in general is incomparably better compared with the past.  Pitches, training, nutrition and health standards and consequently athleticism have improved beyond recognition. 

In a recent book on football in the 1970s Jon Spurling avoids sepia-tinged nostalgia about footballers walking or catching the bus to the ground.     Instead he recalls in the words of one reviewer:  ‘Bungs. Racism.  The National Front.  Hooliganism.  Insanitary, dangerous stadiums with a terrible view and drunk men urinating where they stood. Crappy mud-bath pitches. Brutal, deliberate career-ending tackles. Mindless booze-fuelled violence — and that was just the players.  There were hardly any live games on the telly. Lump it forward to the big bloke up front, hope to nick one late doors away from home, then get back on the coach and on the piss.’

However, the expectations of fans and owners have risen, leading to a rise in managerial turnover.  Not everyone changes managers as often as Watford!  Of course, there is no point in holding on to a manager who is not up to the taskDoes the manager actually make a difference?   There is now a lot of statistical evidence on this which I review in my book Political Football.   In general the answer is not as much as you would expect.  There certainly is often a new manager bounce, but that doesn’t persist for long.  With managerial tenures declining, managers are often faced with players who don’t fit the system they want to play.

World class managers

There are, however, truly exceptional world class managers who do really make a difference.   Four immediately come to mind. Although he has considerable resources at his disposal, Pep Guardiola is in my view a genius.  Jurgen Klopp has transformed the fortunes of Liverpool while a series of managers have not been able to get a grip on Everton despite generous funding. 

 Sir Alex Ferguson’s skill was to start building a new team when he already had a great one (and apparently influencing referees to provide ‘Fergie time’ and not award penalties against United).   Arsene Wenger was greeted as Arsene Who by bemused Arsenal fans, but he quickly showed he was ahead of the curve in all aspects of the game.   Over time, however, he was overtaken by younger managers.   The game does not stand still.

At lower levels, there are examples of managers who allow teams to punch above their weight.   John Coleman has managed nearly one thousand games for Accrington Stanley.  Despite small crowds they have an enviable home record in League One.

In praise of non-league managers

I would also like to nominate the manager of my non-league club, Leamington.  Paul Holleran recently celebrated 600 games in charge.   Leamington is a community club without a rich benefactor and generally limited attendances at its ground hidden in the Warwickshire countryside but it remains a competitor in tier two of the non-league system. 

This is partly because Holleran has an excellent contacts book that allows him to bring in Football League players on loan or recruit from their academies.   The result has been a production line of players for Leagues One and Two or richer non-league clubs.  An example would be Colby Bishop who has been a handful for Charlton when we have played Accrington Stanley.    The transfer fees help keep the club afloat.

It is often argued that the manager has to motivate the players and it has even been suggested that this or that manager ‘lost the dressing room’, no doubt by people who have never been near the dressing room. I am always a bit puzzled by this talk about motivating players.   Presumably they want to be professional footballers and are paid well to play.  It is surely in the interests of their future careers to do their best.   However, it has to be admitted that psychological factors can play a part and confidence is an elusive but key concept in the game.

It’s not all down to the manager.   The players, and the crowd, have to play their part.

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/