So, there's been a lot of chatter about managers doing the carousel across Europe, or the competencies of our own baby-faced assassin, and it got me thinking. How important is the manager in the modern game? Is there such a thing as a super manager? Can a top manager succeed anywhere they go?
Supporters (not just ours) tend to believe that when things aren't going well, they should change the manager, and he'll change the formation and tactics or motivate them better and the same group of players will get better results. Sometimes that happens, case in point Tuchel at Chelsea. Sometimes it doesn't, Mason at Spurs.
In England, we've traditionally had success with one man for a long time (Busby, Fergie, Paisley, Shankly, Wenger) who built the squad and turned his club into a powerhouse over a long period of years. On the continent, managers like Capello, Ancelotti moved from club to club, often within the same league, winning a few trophies and moving on.
Obviously there's no way of knowing, but could Fergie have moved from club to club in the same way and still had the same success? Could Capello have stayed at Milan for 26 years and built the same dynasty that Fergie did? I don't think so. Fergie's main strength was man management and an eye for talent (midfield notwithstanding) while Capello and Ancelotti were tacticians.
Is a managers ability to be successful dependent on their circumstances more than their abilities? Take Pep for example. Can't lose in Europe with Barca, and can't win without them despite domestic dominance with Bayern and City. Barca have won without Pep though. Would any other manager have had the same European success as Zidane at Madrid? Will he be able to replicate the same successes at Juve or PSG, or was he the right man with the right skill set for that particular group of players and the situation Madrid were in when he took over?
Conversely, switch Pep (top of the league) with Chris Wilder (bottom). How many points worse are City? How many points better are SU? And, are SU better than City are worse? As in, how much better would SU be with a better manager, and could a top manager replicate his magic without the circumstances he's orchestrated at City?
Management is much more than tactics and formations, as Jose is finding out the hard way. Cheat code wins until suddenly he wasn't anymore. Managing egos and personalities not only in the squad but in the board are extremely important as well. Over time, a long term manager will have complied a squad with players he can get along with (for the most part) and have the conditions around them to be successful. Somebody like Pep brought it all with him (City built to attract him). I wonder if those conditions are necessary for a manager to ultimately have success, and if they're more important than the manager to that success?