A Great Manager

[Salopian0]

After the sacking of Shakespeare I was wandering what your thoughts are on what makes top.managers. is it buying the right players to fit into the team.complex passing manoeuvres on the training ground .man management of the players to achieve top potential or what. Why is Mournino a better manager than Pulis is it just money.. and why was Ferguson a top manager for so long. At derby clough Jr. Got the best out of average players but was not trusteds to take the team further McLaren and Clement came as great coaches but didn't last long. I know things are different with directors of football . Is it an easy job of picking the team and buying players that maybe one of us could do

[DerbyDaDream]

After the sacking of Shakespeare I was wandering what your thoughts are on what makes top.managers. is it buying the right players to fit into the team.complex passing manoeuvres on the training ground .man management of the players to achieve top potential or what. Why is Mournino a better manager than Pulis is it just money.. and why was Ferguson a top manager for so long. At derby clough Jr. Got the best out of average players but was not trusteds to take the team further McLaren and Clement came as great coaches but didn't last long. I know things are different with directors of football . Is it an easy job of picking the team and buying players that maybe one of us could do

Having the right structure at the club and having good man management skills as well as having a top recruitment team as well a good relationship with the players, staff and the fans, goes a long way into becoming a successful manager.

[ramAnag]

After the sacking of Shakespeare I was wandering what your thoughts are on what makes top.managers. is it buying the right players to fit into the team.complex passing manoeuvres on the training ground .man management of the players to achieve top potential or what. Why is Mournino a better manager than Pulis is it just money.. and why was Ferguson a top manager for so long. At derby clough Jr. Got the best out of average players but was not trusteds to take the team further McLaren and Clement came as great coaches but didn't last long. I know things are different with directors of football . Is it an easy job of picking the team and buying players that maybe one of us could do

In my opinion Mourinho isn't a better manager than Pulis and Shakespeare has been a bit hard done to but that seems increasingly to be the 'Leicester way'.
Managers like Ferguson, Shankly and Paisley are, imo, held in such high esteem because they built squads where success was lasting and had the ability to replace the missing pieces of the 'jigsaw' as players grew old or moved on.
Others like Pulis, Allardyce and Warnock may be unfashionable but are, to my mind, amongst the best around because they repeatedly achieve 'success' at equally unfashionable clubs with comparatively little in terms of resources.
I bet if you sent Pulis and Mourinho to manage the likes of Oldham, Bolton or Burton then the former would come out on top.

[roger_ramjet]

Its a tricky one but I think a lot of Shakespeare's success was down to Chris Marlowe or Frank Bacon, but Shakespeare took the credit and bore the penalty of failure. History may take a different perspective on this however, but in my view its about a managerial unit, rather than just one person.

I think luck and timing plays a huge part in managerial success - Ferguson was saved from the axe at MUFC with a win against Forest (or was it oxford?) and went on to greater things. Its very much "horses for courses" and being in the right place at the right time, Clough jr is an efficient manager at a particular level but not someone you'd really want to manage your team if you wanted to enjoy your games. But how much influence does the manager really have - I feel sure my dog could manage Manchester City and make sure they qualified for the Champions League - and I dont even have a dog.

Finally, I suspect the question "why is Mourinho a better manager than Pulis" is fatally flawed. I would say that, given their respective financial clout, Pulis is arguably the better manager for dragging solid performances out of various squads cobbled together with 10% the resource that Mourinho has always had.

[Romanis]

And I think your argument is fatally flawed Roger. Mourinho cannot be blamed for managing the likes of Chelsea, Madrid, Inter and now Man Utd. He achieved success at his first 2 clubs namely Leira and then Porto. With Porto, he took them to the UEFA and Champions League in successive seasons.

He has a winning style and seized it and this caused the big clubs to come for him. Pulis (sp) on the other hand is better at stabilising a club and making them hard to beat. Put at any of the clubs Mourinho was at with the same funds and resources, I seriously doubt he'll succeed in the same fashion.
Take Venables and Hodgson, both managed big teams and yet failed to deliver the big trophies. No Mourinho is in a class of his own.
He's the closest thing to Clough I've seen. The man's a genius.

[ramAnag]

No one is 'blaming' Mourinho, Romanis and he's obviously a decent manager, but in the same way as a teacher getting an average pupil to achieve a decent GCSE grade may actually be 'better' than another teacher who gets a 'high flyer' to A* level...so Pulis' achievements at WBA and, more especially, Stoke may actually be greater than winning the League with all of Abramovich's resources at his disposal.

[Salopian0]

Finally, I suspect the question "why is Mourinho a better manager than Pulis" is fatally flawed. I would say that, given their respective financial clout, Pulis is arguably the better manager for dragging solid performances out of various squads cobbled together with 10% the resource that Mourinho has always had.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Roger maybe way I phrased it .wasn't saying he was better but when man u job came up pulis would not get a look in even though as you say he is probably better with the resources he had... also I suppose we will never know with clough how he would deal with having money to spend..he did waste a million pound on salmon but that seems a small waste at dcfc at moment

[DerbyDaDream]

Pulis is known for building strong defensive creative sides that are good at set pieces and can create something out of nothing and that has worked well for him at Stoke & West Brom up to this point.

Mourinho is a master tactician and manipulator who is known to have teams with flair and charisma and get in the minds of his opponents.

[Salopian0]

And I think your argument is fatally flawed Roger. Mourinho cannot be blamed for managing the likes of Chelsea, Madrid, Inter and now Man Utd. He achieved success at his first 2 clubs namely Leira and then Porto. With Porto, he took them to the UEFA and Champions League in successive seasons.

He has a winning style and seized it and this caused the big clubs to come for him. Pulis (sp) on the other hand is better at stabilising a club and making them hard to beat. Put at any of the clubs Mourinho was at with the same funds and resources, I seriously doubt he'll succeed in the same fashion.
Take Venables and Hodgson, both managed big teams and yet failed to deliver the big trophies. No Mourinho is in a class of his own.
He's the closest thing to Clough I've seen. The man's a genius.

Though ironically mourinho lost his job at Chelsea for being unable to guide them out of the relegation zone. A friend of mine a manure supporter says fans think he has a 3 year lifespan at a club which suited united at the time. Maybe this due to his reluctance to try youngsters( lukaku)

[ManxRam]

Mourinho gets the respect of the dressing room as did Ferguson, Wenger for a time and the likes of Clough, Shankly and Paisley.

If the players begin a revolt of any kind against the gaffer the writing is on the wall. If the chairman or anyone else at the club interrupts with team selection or player buying (other than funding) it has a similar outcome.

Let the manager manage the side and if he's good enough results will follow. Good managers are few and football is fickle. Success is not a given right.

Guardiola has managed Barcelona, Bayern and City with an open cheque book at each so people ask how can he fail? In line with the above he has to manage 20+ super ego's and an expectant owner/chairman as well as winning trophy's.....

Should players earn more than the manager?