No.7...communication It covers some other points such as media savy and sense of humour. It also covers getting the right players in by making it clear who and what you need. IMO the rest is pointless without communication. Hoddle proves that perfectly...supposed to be tactically astute, has great ideas, quick thinking on his feet but **** at getting on with and communicating with most players...no one he managed has a good thing to say about him.
I would add one to the list an pick it. Man management. The ability to inspire players to achieve and exceed their self perceived best level, and make individuals feel important to the unit. Also nurture harmony in the dressing room.
No it wasn't. Sanino resigned, Garcia left through ill health, McKinlay never had a contract when he left and Jokanovic could not agree a new contract because his wage demands and request for a long term contract were not acceptable for the board.
So what you're saying is... Sanino had the wrong OS Garcia didn't have the right graphics card McKinlay was the free demo, not the full game Jokanovic didn't have enough space on the hard drive
Communication covers all the things I've mentioned. Being able to handle different people requires many different ways of effective communicating.
#8. Luck. Because the best laid plans of mice and men aft gang agley. Someone once tried to excuse a general’s bad outcomes by saying he was unlucky. Napoleon said, "But that’s the worst thing a general can be." Random chance determines if and when all of us water striders are swamped by the infinitely greater and fundamentally unknowable forces we try to skate over. The good news is that stupidity can serve in the place of and abet bad luck. A man was once cleared, eventually, of a murder for which he was wrongly convicted. He stayed in jail because he had tried to escape. His words are ones I live by, "No matter how bad a situation seems, if you just stay calm and use your head, you can always make it worse."
Being an ageing Italian who takes on relegation favourites would appear to be the new template for success
Understanding what their job actually is would have to be up there. In the case of Spurs, it's ingrained into the club's identity that the team should be playing attractive football - something that the likes of George Graham, Jacques Santini, Juande Ramos and AVB fatally misunderstood...well I think that Ramos misunderstood it, because it's still not clear what he was actually trying to do when he was in charge.
I would add to my original list 11. Attention to detail. All successful people have this trait, unless replaced by being lucky.
Being able to motivate players, week in week out. To muster team spirit. To be hard on under-achievers but be quick to forgive once an under-achiever shows he is trying. A manager needs to get the best out of the hand that he is dealt.
One I'd add to the original list is something that I don't think a lot of modern managers have: ruthlessness. Knowing when to cut your losses, regardless of sentiment. Going for the kill whenever possible and not caring about the other side. Pushing the other guy's buttons and banning journalists that talk out of turn. It's an ugly side of the game, but it does work.
If you're an England manager you have to be able to fit certain players into the team regardless of whether they are playing in the best positions, or whether they should be in the team at all. The main attribute is convincing people that any of it makes any sense.
That is Wenger's biggest weakest. Arsenal could have won 2-3 titles in the last 10 years if he had been less stubborn and admitted he was wrong with certain players. Instead he seems determined to prove a point at the expense of his side.
He lost the plot some time ago when he became determined not to concede he had made mistakes for fear of losing face. No way would he accept that lacking a decent holding midfielder was a weakness in his team. And as for playing a high line which allowed opposition players to run in behind the leaden-footed Mertesacker.......
Did we have being able to intimidate the officials? Links in with manipulating the media and so on. I firmly believe that this was worth more than 10 points a season to SAF, and could easily have accounted for their winning margin in his last season in charge (Moyes showed that the team was nothing special and already on the decline, it wasn't just that he wasn't as good a manager). Have everyone on your side, instilling the idea of "entitlement" to a top four place and you've already got some points (and some cards for the opposition), whether the officials realise it or not. I'll add another attribute based on last night's horrible display against Portugal. A good manager has to be able to know when they've got it wrong. The great managers haven't always done the same thing, they adapt (and people don't remember when they get it wrong because they then get it right). Robson didn't get it right in Italy 1990 but he was good enough to change the system. Hodgson was lucky enough to have his best system handed to him against Germany a few matches ago due to injury, but has learned nothing and stubbornly gone back to his original plan.
I have always been an advocate for Hodgson I thought with his European wide experience of managing club and national teams and not least his linguistic abilities he was a good choice to be England manager. I have countered many an argument calling for him to go, not any more! Having finally seen the 'Golden Generation' go rusty and crumble, thereby proving the falsity of the 'Golden' tag Hodgson acts as though this sudden wealth of exciting prospects is a complete and utter surprise. The difference between the way Pochettino and Hodgson reacted to the 'new' situation was marked and telling. Pochettino quickly identified the talents and schooled them in the ways of his team whereas Hodgson has acted like a kid in a sweet shop, a kid who is unable to make up his mind. Surely by the time we reached the Euros with all the qualifying games and numerous friendlies, we should have a settled team with a clarity on their strengths and an awareness of their weaknesses? The opening game of the tournament and Hodgson decides to 'try' Rooney in a new position, because he obviously can't stomach what the game against Germany clearly showed. He clearly has a desperate need to fit Wilshire in, and a touching faith in the qualities of Lallana, Sterling and Sturridge. Form he ignores and match fitness too. WHY? I think because at heart he is a timid man with little imagination, a man who displays precious few leadership qualities with the possible exception of loyalty, but surely loyalty is for followers not leaders. I should have known better, I should have been wary of a man with an obsession with his own chin.
