Recently I had a discussion with Robbie where he said that I shouldn't look on Hughton as some kind of Svengali imposing his will on the players and turning them into robots, and that got me thinking. How much influence does a manager really have? I could see Robbie's point, but I could also see that (I know it's a cliche, but i think it's basically true) clubs come to reflect their managers. For example, I think City currently reflect Hughton, (I'm not going to elaborate on this, since I don't want this thread to become a discussion about whether he should stay or not). This suggests that the role of the manager is crucial. Anyone any thoughts?
as shown by the different opinions on players and managers, everyone has their own ideas of what is 'best'. the manager gets to choice what he thinks is best. if you didnt have a manager then how would a team decide on its tactics for each game and who would play? the players would never agree. the playing style has to reflect the managers decision but he might have to play a different style to what he wants depending on the players he has got in the team
I would say that you are basically correct Vietnam. It can be illustrated by the way that say Everton play inder Martinez compared to Moyes. They have more flair and are more expansive (definitely better to watch). With Moyes you always felt that they were happy with a point particularly away from home. I know you don't want to go down our club's route (which is understandable) but whichever viewpoint you hold, the style of PL was different to that of CH and the team's outlook showed this. The major difference to me is if we are drawing with say 10 minutes to go, PL would always go for the win whereas CH is more circumspect and would tend to defend what we have. This was helpful when we were climbing through lower divisions but not so straightforward in the Premier League.
Given that many Villa fans are baying for Lambert's head after the 1-0 home defeat to Palace and the 'dire, boring football', you could argue that the chief role of the manager is to provide a focal point for fan dissatisfaction. The style of play is very much open to interpretation though. One fan's view of 'rigidity' is in another's view a balance between defense and attack, something Lambert's City team certainly lacked. These differences will always go on, IMO.
The obvious example is SAF at MU. Look at what has happened to them with virtually the same players. That's a very strong argument for the influence of the manager.
I think the manager is critically important. Look at some of the greats, Clough, Fergie, Mourinho (on his way). They have done exceptional things that others may only aspire too. Clough took not only Forrest but Derby too to the high points in their history. Mourinho like or loath him or his football but has achieved so much so quickly. And Fergie for such sustained success. In each instance they have I would say come across as bigger and more important than any player or the team itself. Others have said well look what happened to Wolves when they sacked McCarty. That insinuates that their belief is that his influence in staying up would have been greater than Connor. I would agree. The manager and coaching staff play such an important role, not just in picking the tactics but in instructing, motivating and guiding the players that who is in charge I think is the single most important element of any team. bah!
