Crystal Palace manager

[Guest Gino14]

The thing for me as well is that, sure I don't expect some random to be able to go right in and manage a Football club, but what about someone who has never played Football to any high level and works their way up?  That's basically what Mourinho did, he started at the bottom translating and doing a small coaching role.  Then he worked his way gradually up the ladder till he got a small management job, then a larger job and so on.

 

What would be wrong with a young guy, educating himself then doing his coaching badges and getting a very lowly non league part time assistant to the assistant coaching position?  If he works himself up the ranks, like in any profession wouldn't he have every chance of being as good at coaching and management eventually as some ex Footballer, who just happens to get big chances right away?

[Guest firetotheworks]

I think one thing that is definitive for me, is that from a high level of football or not, the better educated managers with a positive life and football philosophy generally perform better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be high academic education, it could be gradual self study and self improvement.  You can tell when someone is making sense, their ideas have a cohesion and they're logical.

 

A lot of managers, you can listen to them ramble on and apart from struggling to string a sentence together, their analysis of games, tactics and idea of football simply make no sense.  That's when you start questioning how they ever got through an interview and were given a job managing anybody else.  Some of them sound like they couldn't even manage to make their own Ready Brek.

 

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in.

 

He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards.

[KaKa]

Are there any English managers who did not play the game to a competitive level?

 

Some pretty impressive foreign managers have been listed. Wondering if there are nay English ones at all?

 

Put on the other page an article about the Brentford manager who left a career as a broker to get into football, but he had played non-league stuff before I think.

 

Interesting. I think this is definitely a bigger issue in this country tbh.

 

I think in most other countries, if someone takes their badges and studies the game, without having played at a competitive level, they can still go on to manage.

 

However, doesn't really seem to be as prevalent over here. Mostly ex-players seem to get opportunities to manage, and frighteningly it usually seems to be based off of their reputation as players.

[Hanshithispantz]

One of the main things that I've learned since being on N-O, which has been near 10 years, that generally fans (not just ours) that have a degree of intelligence about the game and want their team to play football, know how their team can do it, with the right players in the right positions.

 

Going beyond that gets talked about, but a lot of simple things like formations, positions, player selection get mentioned a lot because generally it's obvious to everyone but the managers. In a way the fans have a unique and more important view point than the managers, in that we only see what happens on Saturday and a lot of managers seem to forget that that's all that matters. As an example, Shola has shown us for years and years that being s*** hot in training means f*** all.

 

Aye, and Im not sticking up for Pardew here tho.  Its easy putting formations up on here and sharing ideas of how the team would play better football if the team did XYZ.

 

We dont sit in on training sessions, we dont sit in the changing rooms before games , we dont sit in on class room sessions, we generally dont know about injuries first hand.  we have no ideas of the problems players have and how coaches and managers have to deal with it.

 

 

 

This is where management comes into it, juggling all the different problems.

The coaching staff play a large part in this. Experience is deffinitely benifitial like, I don't think anyone would argue that.

[Guest Gino14]

I think one thing that is definitive for me, is that from a high level of football or not, the better educated managers with a positive life and football philosophy generally perform better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be high academic education, it could be gradual self study and self improvement.  You can tell when someone is making sense, their ideas have a cohesion and they're logical.

 

A lot of managers, you can listen to them ramble on and apart from struggling to string a sentence together, their analysis of games, tactics and idea of football simply make no sense.  That's when you start questioning how they ever got through an interview and were given a job managing anybody else.  Some of them sound like they couldn't even manage to make their own Ready Brek.

 

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in.

 

He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards.

 

I didn't catch it, but it's the same thing you get from all the pundits.  Most of them never look beyond the obvious.  They were all bleating about Man Utd having no chance of finishing top four a few weeks ago, because their defence was awful.  Now I know their fully fit defence is bang average, but a main reason it was awful was because they had about six defenders injured and were putting in youngsters and midfielders.  Anybody with half a brain could see they would improve once players were back fit and so it has proved.  They never once mentioned the ridiculous injuries once as being a mitigating factor.  They also came out with a load of rubbish from our game with West Ham last week.  They all mentioned West Ham doing well against us despite injuries, failing to mention our injury list was twice as long.  Where is the research?  The amount of work effort going into jobs from 'good football people', especially pundits is shocking.  Their only job is to know the things surrounding the games they're covering.

[Guest firetotheworks]

One of the main things that I've learned since being on N-O, which has been near 10 years, that generally fans (not just ours) that have a degree of intelligence about the game and want their team to play football, know how their team can do it, with the right players in the right positions.

 

Going beyond that gets talked about, but a lot of simple things like formations, positions, player selection get mentioned a lot because generally it's obvious to everyone but the managers. In a way the fans have a unique and more important view point than the managers, in that we only see what happens on Saturday and a lot of managers seem to forget that that's all that matters. As an example, Shola has shown us for years and years that being s*** hot in training means f*** all.

 

Aye, and Im not sticking up for Pardew here tho.  Its easy putting formations up on here and sharing ideas of how the team would play better football if the team did XYZ.

 

We dont sit in on training sessions, we dont sit in the changing rooms before games , we dont sit in on class room sessions, we generally dont know about injuries first hand.  we have no ideas of the problems players have and how coaches and managers have to deal with it.

 

 

 

This is where management comes into it, juggling all the different problems.

 

I would never accuse you of that NG.

 

I agree, although it happens too often for it to be anything other than managerial inability imo.

[Guest Gino14]

Average managers usually have a declining pattern where they're effective for a short time doing the obvious thing, then resort to lots of bizarre things based on biases and having too much knowledge for their managerial ability to handle.  That's what results in things like strikers on the wing for long periods.

 

The amount of times at Newcastle and many other clubs a simply second rate manager has come in and improved things massively just by doing the basics is incredible.  You get the current manager with a central midfielder at leftback and his striker on the wing, he loses every game for a month and gets sacked.  Then a new manager comes in, sticks everyone in a basic 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 with everyone in the right place and results improve.

 

It's not like Glenn Roeder was a good manager, but he did that for us after Souness left.  Just by the gloom of Souness going and Roeder doing the obvious we rocketed up the table.  Then he started getting his own fancy ideas and ruined it, which is what all second rate managers usually do.  It takes a skilled manager to be strong willed, keep his biases out of it and make the correct tactical choices for an extended period.

[Hughesy]

I think the hardest thing about being a manager would organising constructive training sessions each day with a view to improving players.  I assume as you do coaching courses you must get ideas, but I'd probably get them playing two touch matches (of varying team sizes) on small pitches and that'd be about it.  Maybe some set piece work as well...

[UV]

Can't believe people are arguing that people with an education outside football aren't as capable of being good managers as the dimwits who were lucky enough to play.

 

Can't believe people are arguing that by virtue of playing a computer game a "huge proportion" of people would be far better at managing a football team than people who have been managing premiership clubs for many years. The only thing stopping them would be the footabllers who for some reason wouldn't respect their in-game coaching badges and their 5 successive Champions League titles - what a bunch of thickies. I'll remind you again of the original assertion which people are defending:

 

I suspect that a huge proportion of Football Manager players would run rings around most "top" managers if it weren't for the fact that the players wouldn't take notice of them since they had no background in football.

 

 

The numbers will always be stacked massively against those outside the game but what the few who did it have actually achieved in the game tells you they need more chances.

 

There are of course no managers without footballing experience who have failed at football management, they are all Mourinhos, Wengers and Rodgers*

 

*j/k

[Guest firetotheworks]

I think one thing that is definitive for me, is that from a high level of football or not, the better educated managers with a positive life and football philosophy generally perform better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be high academic education, it could be gradual self study and self improvement.  You can tell when someone is making sense, their ideas have a cohesion and they're logical.

 

A lot of managers, you can listen to them ramble on and apart from struggling to string a sentence together, their analysis of games, tactics and idea of football simply make no sense.  That's when you start questioning how they ever got through an interview and were given a job managing anybody else.  Some of them sound like they couldn't even manage to make their own Ready Brek.

 

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in.

 

He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards.

 

I didn't catch it, but it's the same thing you get from all the pundits.  Most of them never look beyond the obvious.  They were all bleating about Man Utd having no chance of finishing top four a few weeks ago, because their defence was awful.  Now I know their fully fit defence is bang average, but a main reason it was awful was because they had about six defenders injured and were putting in youngsters and midfielders.  Anybody with half a brain could see they would improve once players were back fit and so it has proved.  They never once mentioned the ridiculous injuries once as being a mitigating factor.  They also came out with a load of rubbish from our game with West Ham last week.  They all mentioned West Ham doing well against us despite injuries, failing to mention our injury list was twice as long.  Where is the research?  The amount of work effort going into jobs from 'good football people', especially pundits is shocking.  Their only job is to know the things surrounding the games they're covering.

 

Good examples. The one that always springs to mind with me is when people criticised our defence in the relegation season, despite it being constantly exposed by midfielders like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt.

[Ronaldo]

It was either blame the defence for us not winning games or explore the fact we weren't scoring goals. That would've meant criticism for the media's favourite England hypejob.

[Guest firetotheworks]

It was either blame the defence for us not winning games or explore the fact we weren't scoring goals. That would've meant criticism for the media's favourite England hypejob.

 

Aye, remember that miss vs Portsmouth man? Utter prick. Comfortably the most disliked ex-NUFC player, he has to be, surely?

[UV]

I think one thing that is definitive for me, is that from a high level of football or not, the better educated managers with a positive life and football philosophy generally perform better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be high academic education, it could be gradual self study and self improvement.  You can tell when someone is making sense, their ideas have a cohesion and they're logical.

 

A lot of managers, you can listen to them ramble on and apart from struggling to string a sentence together, their analysis of games, tactics and idea of football simply make no sense.  That's when you start questioning how they ever got through an interview and were given a job managing anybody else.  Some of them sound like they couldn't even manage to make their own Ready Brek.

 

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in.

 

He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards.

 

I didn't catch it, but it's the same thing you get from all the pundits.  Most of them never look beyond the obvious.  They were all bleating about Man Utd having no chance of finishing top four a few weeks ago, because their defence was awful.  Now I know their fully fit defence is bang average, but a main reason it was awful was because they had about six defenders injured and were putting in youngsters and midfielders.  Anybody with half a brain could see they would improve once players were back fit and so it has proved.  They never once mentioned the ridiculous injuries once as being a mitigating factor.  They also came out with a load of rubbish from our game with West Ham last week.  They all mentioned West Ham doing well against us despite injuries, failing to mention our injury list was twice as long.  Where is the research?  The amount of work effort going into jobs from 'good football people', especially pundits is shocking.  Their only job is to know the things surrounding the games they're covering.

 

Good examples. The one that always springs to mind with me is when people criticised our defence in the relegation season, despite it being constantly exposed by midfielders like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt.

 

Good example. Alan Smith started 4 games & came on as a sub in 2 in the relegation season.

[Guest Gino14]

Good examples. The one that always springs to mind with me is when people criticised our defence in the relegation season, despite it being constantly exposed by midfielders like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt.

 

It was barely worth mentioning the defence with that 'engine room' and the fact we never had any of our strikers fit for an extended period.  We didn't look like any kind of team that season and rightly went down.

 

There was definitely never any chance the press would start having a go at Owen. 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I think one thing that is definitive for me, is that from a high level of football or not, the better educated managers with a positive life and football philosophy generally perform better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be high academic education, it could be gradual self study and self improvement.  You can tell when someone is making sense, their ideas have a cohesion and they're logical.

 

A lot of managers, you can listen to them ramble on and apart from struggling to string a sentence together, their analysis of games, tactics and idea of football simply make no sense.  That's when you start questioning how they ever got through an interview and were given a job managing anybody else.  Some of them sound like they couldn't even manage to make their own Ready Brek.

 

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in.

 

He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards.

 

I didn't catch it, but it's the same thing you get from all the pundits.  Most of them never look beyond the obvious.  They were all bleating about Man Utd having no chance of finishing top four a few weeks ago, because their defence was awful.  Now I know their fully fit defence is bang average, but a main reason it was awful was because they had about six defenders injured and were putting in youngsters and midfielders.  Anybody with half a brain could see they would improve once players were back fit and so it has proved.  They never once mentioned the ridiculous injuries once as being a mitigating factor.  They also came out with a load of rubbish from our game with West Ham last week.  They all mentioned West Ham doing well against us despite injuries, failing to mention our injury list was twice as long.  Where is the research?  The amount of work effort going into jobs from 'good football people', especially pundits is shocking.  Their only job is to know the things surrounding the games they're covering.

 

Good examples. The one that always springs to mind with me is when people criticised our defence in the relegation season, despite it being constantly exposed by midfielders like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt.

 

Good example. Alan Smith started 4 games & came on as a sub in 2 in the relegation season.

 

'like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt.'

 

Nicky Butt was the mainstay, everyone else in centre mid chopped and changed for various reasons. The worst was Smith, hence the example to highlight the point. Nee idea what your problem is like, pal.

[GeordieT]

Pretty sure if we were sat here in twenty years surveying the managers of the Premier League, whilst I am sure there would be still some former players, it wouldn't surprise me if there were several from the 'FM Generation' - people who are now entering the game as opposition and performance analysts and the likes.

[oldtype]

Pretty sure if we were sat here in twenty years surveying the managers of the Premier League, whilst I am sure there would be still some former players, it wouldn't surprise me if there were several from the 'FM Generation' - people who are now entering the game as opposition and performance analysts and the likes.

 

Inevitably some "analytics people" are going to end up in managerial positions, as they have in American sports. It's going to be a pretty tough path getting there though.

 

The reason most current managers were successful footballers are mostly because players won't respect anybody else.

[KaKa]

Ideally it should be a combination of both these traditional managers, and the analysts or more cerebral types. As is happening a lot more in American sports.

 

However, I can't see it catching on here. Most of the managers here are incredibly intimidated by having any such sort of input from elsewhere. Insecure control freaks. The continued whinging about directors of football for example.

[Guest Gino14]

Ideally it should be a combination of both these traditional managers, and the analysts or more cerebral types. As is happening a lot more in American sports.

 

However, I can't see it catching on here. Most of the managers here are incredibly intimidated by having any such sort of input from elsewhere. Insecure control freaks. The continued whinging about directors of football for example.

 

The way it will catch on here is if other countries embrace it.  If a foreign analytically minded manager breaks through and is a top manager he'll be able to get a job here should he want it.  Then if he did well, others would follow the example.  That's what it would take though, I can't see the UK being the innovation centre of it, not when I see how far behind our current managers are.

[KaKa]

Ideally it should be a combination of both these traditional managers, and the analysts or more cerebral types. As is happening a lot more in American sports.

 

However, I can't see it catching on here. Most of the managers here are incredibly intimidated by having any such sort of input from elsewhere. Insecure control freaks. The continued whinging about directors of football for example.

 

The way it will catch on here is if other countries embrace it.  If a foreign analytically minded manager breaks through and is a top manager he'll be able to get a job here should he want it.  Then if he did well, others would follow the example.  That's what it would take though, I can't see the UK being the innovation centre of it, not when I see how far behind our current managers are.

 

I'm just talking about them contributing at clubs, and not necessarily becoming managers even.

 

A lot of sports franchises in the states now have their analytics departments that aid the coaches, the scouting departments etc.

 

Think such ideas are routinely scoffed at over here. Just need proper players.

[Guest Gino14]

Ideally it should be a combination of both these traditional managers, and the analysts or more cerebral types. As is happening a lot more in American sports.

 

However, I can't see it catching on here. Most of the managers here are incredibly intimidated by having any such sort of input from elsewhere. Insecure control freaks. The continued whinging about directors of football for example.

 

The way it will catch on here is if other countries embrace it.  If a foreign analytically minded manager breaks through and is a top manager he'll be able to get a job here should he want it.  Then if he did well, others would follow the example.  That's what it would take though, I can't see the UK being the innovation centre of it, not when I see how far behind our current managers are.

 

I'm just talking about them contributing at clubs, and not necessarily becoming managers even.

 

A lot of sports franchises in the states now have their analytics departments that aid the coaches, the scouting departments etc.

 

Think such ideas are routinely scoffed at over here. Just need proper players.

 

Oh definitely but ideas always need the right kind of presentation and success to be popular.  If someone like Klinsmann, with his popularity and charisma, was to bring a team of people over from America and manage Tottenham to success, the media would run with it and all of a sudden you'd see many teams copying and having full teams of technical experts involved.

 

One problem at the moment is that the biggest supporter of all this stuff over here is Sam Allardyce, which does no end of damage to the cause of getting more analysis involved.  He uses it to gets results, but with his unwatchable brand of Football.  So it's an approach that will never gain popularity with that kind of representation.

[GeordieT]

Well all clubs have these departments, City have like a ten strong team I think. Can't imagine Pardew taking too much notice of what our analysts have to say, almost everything he does seems to be based on his intuition. Although I am sure he pops in to get the 'distance covered' stats.

[ikri]

Can't believe people are arguing that people with an education outside football aren't as capable of being good managers as the dimwits who were lucky enough to play.

 

Can't believe people are arguing that by virtue of playing a computer game a "huge proportion" of people would be far better at managing a football team than people who have been managing premiership clubs for many years. The only thing stopping them would be the footabllers who for some reason wouldn't respect their in-game coaching badges and their 5 successive Champions League titles - what a bunch of thickies. I'll remind you again of the original assertion which people are defending:

 

I suspect that a huge proportion of Football Manager players would run rings around most "top" managers if it weren't for the fact that the players wouldn't take notice of them since they had no background in football.

 

 

The numbers will always be stacked massively against those outside the game but what the few who did it have actually achieved in the game tells you they need more chances.

 

There are of course no managers without footballing experience who have failed at football management, they are all Mourinhos, Wengers and Rodgers*

 

*j/k

 

Did you notice any irony in my use of "top" in reference to managers?  I mean "top" managers like Pardew, Allardyce, etc. cretinous fools for the most part who latch on to a single method of playing because it worked for a short period yet make it into some core footballing philosophy.  It isn't rocket science to play players in their most natural positions, yet Pardew is getting plaudits for doing just that, despite being the man responsible for playing people out of position in the first place.  It's not a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that people who are adept at a football tactics simulator might have a better tactical knowledge than the fuckwit who keeps shoehorning players into unfamiliar positions because it once seemed to work in completely different circumstances, with completely different players.

[Cronky]

The thing for me as well is that, sure I don't expect some random to be able to go right in and manage a Football club, but what about someone who has never played Football to any high level and works their way up?  That's basically what Mourinho did, he started at the bottom translating and doing a small coaching role.  Then he worked his way gradually up the ladder till he got a small management job, then a larger job and so on.

 

What would be wrong with a young guy, educating himself then doing his coaching badges and getting a very lowly non league part time assistant to the assistant coaching position?  If he works himself up the ranks, like in any profession wouldn't he have every chance of being as good at coaching and management eventually as some ex Footballer, who just happens to get big chances right away?

 

Of course that could happen. But such a person would have to get his hands dirty by operating within the messiness of the real world, and having his ideas tested out in a practical way at each stage as he tried to rise up the ladder.

 

What surprises me is anyone thinking that developing expertise on a computer game can be a substitute for that process, or even for a part of it.

 

 

[Dave]

It's an interesting theory, but talk of computer game players being better at the real thing is a bit cringey IMO. No matter how advanced the software is, it's all still 100% theoretical.