Search the Community

Change the manager is the answer? On the right path so no change, please Top five teams and their managers since a first trophy in the Premier league era Clubs Managers Trophies First trophy Man Utd 7 40 Prem League 1993 Chelsea 19 27 FA cup 1997 Arsenal 5 22 League cup 1993 Man City 3 20 FA cup 2011 Liverpool 8 19 League cup 1995 Ah, football was invented in 1992-93 by the wonderful people at Sky and the 5 teams above have dominated since. Now it is annoying that statistics are often confined to the Premier League era but in this case maybe it is justified. Huge amounts of money made their way into England and exposure, hype, sponsorship and many other factors came into play since then including a ruthlessness with the sack never seen before. Pep Guardiola is the benchmark to which all aspire My question today is: is there any correlation between managerial change and winning trophies? It is very hard to make out a case either way as you can see in the table above. I should point out that I have included exclusive trophies like the Charity Shield and the various Super cups in this list despite them being very confined in terms of who competes. Arsenal and City have never qualified for any type of Super cup although obviously that changes next season. The Glazers are unpopular at Man Utd I have not included in this list the teams who have won only one trophy plus Leicester who have won 3 as they cannot seriously be regarded as contenders. For the 5 teams concerned the figures are from the first trophy in the Premier league era. I have also not included caretaker managers. Money screams not talks What we can see clearly is that that money plays a huge role. These are the richest clubs over the Premier League era. Manchester United dominated at the start simply because they had the most money and a manager whose style very much suited the new Premier league. The backpass rule was changed to stop you passing to the goalkeeper and wasting time. It became dangerous to pass back to the keeper. Ferguson loved this because he liked to attack. Attacking football suited Sky as they promoted their new brand. They hyped Utd, Utd had the most money and this helped them make even richer. Liverpool and Arsenal had a much more counter-attacking style and struggled initially with the new demands. Smaller teams like Blackburn and Newcastle were the only real danger as Utd mopped up trophies. Roman Abramovich changed how football is run Even when Arsenal appeared, they were almost Utd’s only competition which meant Utd continued to take many trophies. The money kept growing and billionaires were starting to eye up potential candidates to take on these giants. Roman Abramovich was the first such and, after failing to buy Arsenal, he opted for Chelsea, a team who had improved enormously over the past seasons. He brought a level of money unheard of as he built Chelsea into a worldwide brand. It is very true that fans are fickle. If a team starts winning, a lot of fans switch allegiance. The point here is that Abramovich’s ownership style was critical to Chelsea’s constant success. Other teams have had money thrown at them without success. PSG, despite unheard of amounts, are still only big in France, the weakest of Europe’s 5 big leagues. Copy the Arsenal and Man Utd benchmarks Something similar happened with City as with Chelsea. Big money came in but the ownership style was geared for success. As with Chelsea, the academies flourished and incredible training grounds installed. This holistic style was pioneered by Arsenal and Arsene Wenger but the other area they borrowed from Ferguson - his willingness to splash the cash to get supreme players. They combined the strategies employed by Arsenal and Utd to get to the top. Sheik Mansour- created the structures to make Man city win Traditionally, Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are the big trio in English football in terms of trophies won. City and Chelsea are right on their heels now and Chelsea are second in the Premier league era. This is a testament to the importance of owners. Owners at the traditional big clubs know they are coming into a machine designed for success, owners at emerging clubs know they have to emulate that machine. And so benchmarking becomes critical. Looking at the Rolls Royce in the different areas of success and striving to become better. The scouting, the academies, the training facilities, the medical and rehabilitation facilities, the relationship with fans, the branding, the management structures that ensure that people can manage their own areas successfully but all towards the main goal of making the club function as a whole and continuing to win. If one area breaks down, for example, at Chelsea, where the manager seemed bewildered at all the players coming in and could not create overnight the partnerships that are essential to a winning team. The manager needs to have the final decision in team matters. The owners must create the right conditions I believe that the managers are important, yes, but in the modern era, the Premier league one, the owners have to work for the manager to enable him to concentrate on getting the team right. There are areas he needs to be in charge of and areas where others take responsibility. Ferguson and Wenger could not use their method of managing now, they would have to accept that they can’t control everything, it is just too big, but as long as all decisions are with the aim of getting the team to win, that the manager can get the players he can work with, that he has the power over team matters, then all areas are in harmony. City, I believe, has this. Arsenal, I hope, also. Stan Kroenke seems to have quietly put the right system in place Because then, and only then, can you win in the modern era. The manager, if rightly supported, can make a big difference. If Guardiola goes in two years as has been suggested, he will be a huge loss as all structures have been designed for him to succeed. Another manager will probably need the structures adjusted to ensure he becomes a winning machine. This is where good owners come in. They need to be clever enough to accept the changes necessary to suit what is, ultimately, the critical role, the manager’s. To give one simple example, the medical and rehabilitation areas should be able to have a veto over whether a player is fit to play. If a manager can overrule them then that relationship breaks down. If a player then gets injured, then all the team know that the manager doesn’t care about them, only winning. Ask Jose Mourinho. John Henry - are Liverpool fans happy? There are too many areas to be managed by one person And so, as we can see from above, Chelsea have made the most changes of manager and continued to win. City the least but they were also by far the last to achieve success in the Premier league era with an FA cup win in 2011. Todd Boehly -does not seem to understand soccer My conclusion is that how an owner runs the club is the critical factor. The football manager cannot manage a worldwide scouting system, the financial contracts of players, the medical teams, the academies, the relationship with fans, the branding and marketing, the list goes on. He can have an impact in all these areas but to be successful he cannot spend too much time on these matters. Just trying to look after the team he must work with an array of coaches, the goalkeeping, the set piece, the attacking, the midfield and the defence experts. The statistic guys, the tactic guys and also work out all the media commitments. Plus deal with all the players problems, the disappointed, family problems, medical problems, international commitments, scheduling, and keep up, as best he can, with all the areas he hasn’t got the time to manage. You need good owners to be smart in how they manage the manager’s time, to allow him to do what he does best, get the team to win. Guardiola is the benchmark for Arsenal’s owners. They must ensure the same for Arteta.