How Do You Evaluate A Manager?

[Tom Fleuriot]

[slow day back at work today. This is an essay, and I don't expect anyone to read it, but I've written it now so may as well post it. Interested to hear arguments on specific points.]

I was thinking earlier about trying to get a little more forensic on Derek McInnes and his performance as manager. There's a lot of talk from both aspects of the hokey cokey on whether he's any good, and it seems to go down in circles or often involve people talking at cross-purposes or in highly generalistic terms.

So I thought, how do you evaluate a manager? The obvious answer is, ultimately, results. But there are often hidden factors that can impact a manager's ability to do well. The obvious examples of taking a while to get going are all known; Ferguson initially at Man United, George Burley at Ipswich, Nigel Clough at Derby, Villas-Boas at Spurs. There are also managers who seem to initially get results and then fade; Billy Davies, Aidy Boothroyd. Managers who are successful at one club and disastrous at another: Roy Hodgson, Owen Coyle, any of the last five Gas managers. There are also some about whom people have ferocious arguments regarding quality; Mark Hughes, Harry Redknapp, Glenn Hoddle, Kevin Keegan, Steve Bruce, Mick McCarthy.

From this I considered what makes a manager? I think it can be broken down broadly into the following:

1. Player management and motivation
2. Tactics (including team selection)
3. Player dealing (buying & selling)
4. Backroom set-up

I've put these in the probable order of importance, but would be interested to hear other peoples' views. There are other aspects that impact results; finances, luck on the pitch, injuries, fixture lists. But those are very little to do with the manager. I think that the above four are key.

I then thought about each of our recent managers. I'd say Johnson for example was very good on player management and motivation, although started to lose it with Basso and Orr. His team selection was usually good considering the players available, although his tactics were fairly agricultural. Player buying was poor, but player selling was decent. His backroom set-up was atrocious.

Millen I'd say was fairly strong in player dealing, not in much else.

So McInnes...

Player management and motivation

I'm uncertain here. He's clearly good at selling the club to players. There was a lot of positive talk when he first came about the change in atmosphere.

But I still don't see a lot of players improving. I'm not blaming Del for Fontaine's loss of form, but with the exception of Woolford (and arguably Adomah) I have not seen any player improve significantly since Del came in. I'd like to see far more development of players like Ribeiro, James Wilson, Reid, Edwards and Burns. I'd have liked to see Pitman and Bolasie and Wood to have been more prolific when with us (although for all three there is the excuse of too weak a central spine to allow real attacking verve).

In terms of mentality on the pitch, he gives the players something in terms of dynamism. The City performances against Cardiff and Palace were, in terms of speed of thought, better than I've seen at City since Danny Wilson was manager (arguably the Johnson years in League One showed as good passing and movement). But there isn't the never-say-die attitude we had under Johnson, and the amount of times teams run through our midfield is embarassing. I wonder whether getting the right mentality back is about getting rid of tired personnel as much as anything.

Tactics / team selection

Poor with some positives. The Millwall team selection was astonishing. It's clear that he is trying to be far too clever for his own good.

Maybe one day we will wake up this season and suddenly our players are ten times cleverer than the opposition, able to adapt to new formations in the blink of an eye. I also note that Mick McCarthy said he got completely out-thought in the Ipswich game. But all I saw yesterday was a winning team being changed.

I would offer Del two small mitigations:

1. Injuries. If Foster AND Bryan were both out injured he couldn't really play the same formation as for Peterborough even had he wanted to. This, of course, doesn't in any way explain the decision to drop Baldock.
2. Poverty of team. The fact is, we do have a very poor spine to the team. It does seem like if we play a certain way for more than a couple of games, the opposition work us out and can counter it, with better players. Note that when we started doing better yesterday, it wasn't by playing the same formation as against Peterborough.

These do not excuse it. I used to complain that the same players started every week irrespective of result. Now there is the opposite problem: there appears to be very little correlation between quality of contribution and likelihood of starting the next game. Del needs to be a bit less clever.

Player dealing

I would say that, on balance, this is positive. It can be broken down into signings, missed signings, and players allowed to leave.

Of all non-loan signings / contract extensions, we have four good (Cunningham, Davies, Baldock, Anderson), four half-decent back-up players (Bates, Pearson, Foster, Carey), and two that are clearly not good enough (Morris, Wilson). Pearson and Foster arguably fall into the latter category, but I think Pearson has scored too many goals to justify that, and Foster has only had one truly atrocious performance (against Derby). Bates may yet prove himself to be a good player. The poorer players were signed on short-term contracts, and apparently on low wages, so we are not talking Nicky Hunts here.

Cisse and Bikey were disappointing misses, but their wages were astronomical. We have no idea bout the wages of players like Beevers, Shittu, or Collinson, but it does feel like we could have made a play for them. I think it was a mistake not being more decisive in the purchase of Keogh and just splashing the cash before anyone turned up. But with tighter belts it's harder and he's working under tough restrictions: we have less money than pretty much any other club in the division.

Regarding sales, when McInnes took over he still had Hunt, James, Stewart on the books. I'm disappointed about Ribeiro and Bolasie not being developed and as a result being sold. I think there was little he could do with Bolasie; we didn't have a strong enough team last season to play two flair wingers, and Adomah was better. I recall turning to my mate when Bolasie came on against Coventry and complaining he wouldn't achieve anything, so what did I know?

Backroom set-up

Jury has to be out on this one. We can't say that the Academy is fixed and functioning, because we need to see it churning out players. A similar point for our scouting network, which still needs work.

Del's actions come out as broadly positive in my view, as there is more of a sense of purpose and direction. The club feels as though it at least has an idea of how to go about developing its set-up. We've brought several players in for the development squad who you would expect to see appearing from next season. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs stability and yet, ironically, it's the aspect that will always be the greatest gamble - you will never know how well the chickens are incubated before they're hatched.

But there needs to be better communication. As mentioned by someone in the Dave L thread, Wigan and Swansea are great examples of what needs to be done here (and it requires the chairman as well as the manager). I think there would be more support for Del if he came out and said (if this is the case):

• I want a players to be highly intelligent tactically, playing fast, passing football. This will mean tailoring our squad to the opposition. It will mean worse performances and worse results initially, and there will be mistakes along the way. But when we pull it off we will have a mentality in place that will allow us to take on the very best and win, as I did when I beat [insert large club].
• I need to recruit the right players for this system. This takes time. We are working on it but I will not be hurried into signings that could hamstring the club (to be fair he has already said this).
• I want our academy set-up to be producing players by [x]. It hasn't been as successful as we'd like to date because of [? the attitude of youth players today? Challenges in movement from youth to professional football?.

Conclusion

I know that I'm a happy clapper so I will be shot down anyway, but when looking at this (and initially feeling really depressed), I feel slightly more positive about Del.

I feel he has done enough to deserve one more transfer window on player dealing, and his backroom set-up looks exciting. His major black mark is tactics and team selection - he needs to stop trying to be bloody clever and start picking players on the basis of quality / form. But it has worked on occasion and if toned down and more subtle may be a success with better players. He also needs to show he can improve players' outputs so that they are performing better with us. I would expect to see Reid, Edwards, and Burns start getting some game time.

This club has been missing the same thing for a long time. We need two new centre backs and two new centre midfielders (one if we can get Danns). I think that close assessment of managerial skills just about tilts the balance in favour of keeping del and giving him a chance to address that.

Just about.

[Keepers Ball]

Interesting read and very well thought through...

..but Im still unconvinced.

We need change (again)

[Robbored]

In much simpler terms - results. End of.

[Tom Fleuriot]

In much simpler terms - results. End of.

I hear what you're saying, but as I mention above results can be influenced by luck with injuries, referees, random actions during a match and the order in which you play opposition (although not in our case with the latter). It can be influenced by the mentality of the fans, the funds available or the quality of players signed before the manager came in.

So it can't possibly be "results. End of".

Edit - tidied a little and removed unnecessary sideswipe at RR, which looked churlish rather than cheeky as intended. Apologies.

[Calculus]

In much simpler terms - results. End of.

Not quite IMO.

Difficult to quantify, but I think the measure is the gap between results and aspirations. If ManU finished 6th it would be thought of a disaster. There are a fair few at the Emirates calling for Wenger's head. Both those clubs will still have had much better results than most. On the other hand, Yeovil (for example) have massively overachieved in the last ten years for the size of club they are.

In our case we, for some strange reason, seem to think that we have a right to Championship football, with the occassional run out in the Prem. In reality we are a yo-yo club beween Championship and League 1. Where we are now is more or less where we should be, historically speaking.

Frustrating thing about now is the we don't seem to taken advantage of the shed loads of cash spent - and I guess that is what any sort of management is about - making the most of the assets you have. Clearly we don't do that and our own inflated sense of entitlement is creating a very bad atmosphere.

[BCFC_Dan]

In much simpler terms - results. End of.

No. Plenty of managers can get short term results to the complete detriment of the long term. Examples of this would be Danny Wilson and your old friend Gary Johnson. Johnson neglected the youth system and had a scouting network that consisted of his brother. Wilson allowed an unprofessional dressing room culture to proliferate which resulted in many talented youngsters failing to fulfill their potential.

Some managers need longer to implement their plans. Pulis seemed to be leading us to oblivion but Stoke has shown that his methods can work. We didn't like the short term struggling so we let him go. I'm not saying he'd have succeeded in the long term but at City we never even wait to find out. This is why our back room always seems to be such a shambles.

[sportingmad0209]

I don't normally read long posts (just CBA), but this was a good post.

A new manager will NOT guarantee a change of fortune, but it will guarantee we will have less money to invest in other areas of the club.

Stick with him (for now).

[CheddarReds]

Good post, I agree with you.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Difficult to quantify, but I think the measure is the gap between results and aspirations. If ManU finished 6th it would be thought of a disaster. There are a fair few at the Emirates calling for Wenger's head. Both those clubs will still have had much better results than most. On the other hand, Yeovil (for example) have massively overachieved in the last ten years for the size of club they are.

In our case we, for some strange reason, seem to think that we have a right to Championship football, with the occassional run out in the Prem. In reality we are a yo-yo club beween Championship and League 1. Where we are now is more or less where we should be, historically speaking.

Think your second paragraph is an excellent point. I think that we have a peculiar problem as a club - for the majority of the years between 1989 and 2008 (ish) we would have had one of the best win ratios in the country. This was mainly due to us regularly just missing out on promotion in the third tier every season. As a result, I think our fans don't necessarily expect us to finish higher in the division, but (paradoxically) we expect to win at home and get more frustrated than other teams when we don't.

The only way to realign this is to have us finish in the bottom half of whatever division consistently for a good twenty years, in the style of Rotherham, Swansea or Blackpool. The Gas have been doing it for about ten years, and their fans still haven't worked it out.

[Randy Marsh]

Still amazed people are making excuses for our worst manager in decades.

The guy doesn't know how to set up a team and is sending us straight to League 1. There are no positives from the situation he's throwing us into.

Wake up people.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Randy, love your work. Comments below.

Still amazed people are making excuses [I don't think I am making excuses - I think I was quite critical and trying to avoid hyperbole, such as...] for our worst manager in decades. [i'd say he's better than Tinnion. I think he's better than Coppell. I think there's a case to be made that he's better than Millen but starting from a worse position]

The guy doesn't know how to set up a team [agree most of the time] and is sending us straight to League 1 [not straight there, although it does look a risk]. There are no positives [baldock and Cunningham?] from the situation he's throwing us into. [is it purely him?]

Wake up people. [No need for that]

[BrizzleRed]

I hear what you're saying, but as I mention above results can be influenced by luck with injuries, referees, random actions during a match and the order in which you play opposition (although not in our case with the latter). It can be influenced by the mentality of the fans, the funds available or the quality of players signed before the manager came in.

So it can't possibly be "results. End of".

Edit - tidied a little and removed unnecessary sideswipe at RR, which looked churlish rather than cheeky as intended. Apologies.

Really interesting analysis of our current situation in your original post, with very well put points and I can't argue with any of them, other than possibly the conclusion.

I think things have definitely improved with regard to the development squad, but that's really the only area where I see any cause for optimism atm. Looking at where we are now results and performance wise, compared with where we were 12 months ago makes very depressing viewing.

While I think man for man we probably have a better, more balanced squad, the results we're getting are imho, exactly what we deserve and we are in a position in the table that we also deserve. I don't think we've been unlucky, we just haven't earned or deserved better results than we've achieved.

The bottom line is, I'm getting increasingly concerned that however good the players are that DMC has at his disposal, he just hasn't got a clue how to use them effectively and he doesn't show any signs of improvement in that area.

I just can't see any kind of vision for the future in Del's actions and suspect this is because he's just floundering with no master plan in place. I so hope this isn't the case, because if it is true, we'll be in an even bigger mess in the not so distant future!

[pongo88]

It’s simple – results relative to the position / situation of the club.

Sometimes the percentage of matches won is used as a measure. I think this is wrong as it does not allow for the position / situation the club is in. Winning a large number of matches at Chelsea is easier than the job John Ward has at the Gas. He’s taken over a struggling club with no money. Winning sufficient matches to stay in division 2 this season would be regarded as success.

The problem is, if he keeps them in division 2, the expectations will rise and Gas supporters will forget they have a poor team with no money and demand promotion.

If you relate this to City, Del took over a struggling team in a poor position, but was given support and money to turn things around. Therefore last season avoiding relegation by the skin of his teeth was a success. His starting position at the beginning of this season should have been better than when he took over, but following numerous signings, things have got worse. Therefore if he again avoids relegation by the skin of his teeth he can not be regard as a good manager – just a lucky b*s**rd!

[Tom Fleuriot]

Really interesting analysis of our current situation in your original post, with very well put points and I can't argue with any of them, other than possibly the conclusion.

I think things have definitely improved with regard to the development squad, but that's really the only area where I see any cause for optimism atm. Looking at where we are now results and performance wise, compared with where we were 12 months ago makes very depressing viewing.

While I think man for man we probably have a better, more balanced squad, the results we're getting are imho, exactly what we deserve and we are in a position in the table that we also deserve. I don't think we've been unlucky, we just haven't earned or deserved better results than we've achieved.

The bottom line is, I'm getting increasingly concerned that however good the players are that DMC has at his disposal, he just hasn't got a clue how to use them effectively and he doesn't show any signs of improvement in that area.

I just can't see any kind of vision for the future in Del's actions and suspect this is because he's just floundering with no master plan in place. I so hope this isn't the case, because if it is true, we'll be in an even bigger mess in the not so distant future!

I hear you, and I think that the analysis could swing in eitehr direction.

I worry that I am naturally quite patient with managers, so I may not be seeing the wood for the trees due to a natural desire to support a manager.

[BrizzleRed]

I hear you, and I think that the analysis could swing in eitehr direction.

I worry that I am naturally quite patient with managers, so I may not be seeing the wood for the trees due to a natural desire to support a manager.

I think being patient with managers is a great trait, which is pretty rare these days, given that everyone wants instant success and aren't prepared to wait. I'm actually totally with you with support for a manager, as I keep thinking back to Alan Dicks all those years ago. Where would we have been if the board hadn't given him time?

I've backed Del all the way, but although I've resisted that back or sack poll, his team selection yesterday completely baffled me and I now can't help questioning if he actually knows what he's doing.

I want to believe in him because, but his actions are making it increasingly difficult to have any faith left.

Who'd be a fan of BCFC eh??!!!

[marshy]

[slow day back at work today. This is an essay, and I don't expect anyone to read it, but I've written it now so may as well post it. Interested to hear arguments on specific points.]

I was thinking earlier about trying to get a little more forensic on Derek McInnes and his performance as manager. There's a lot of talk from both aspects of the hokey cokey on whether he's any good, and it seems to go down in circles or often involve people talking at cross-purposes or in highly generalistic terms.

So I thought, how do you evaluate a manager? The obvious answer is, ultimately, results. But there are often hidden factors that can impact a manager's ability to do well. The obvious examples of taking a while to get going are all known; Ferguson initially at Man United, George Burley at Ipswich, Nigel Clough at Derby, Villas-Boas at Spurs. There are also managers who seem to initially get results and then fade; Billy Davies, Aidy Boothroyd. Managers who are successful at one club and disastrous at another: Roy Hodgson, Owen Coyle, any of the last five Gas managers. There are also some about whom people have ferocious arguments regarding quality; Mark Hughes, Harry Redknapp, Glenn Hoddle, Kevin Keegan, Steve Bruce, Mick McCarthy.

From this I considered what makes a manager? I think it can be broken down broadly into the following:

1. Player management and motivation
3. Tactics (including team selection)
5. Player dealing (buying & selling)
7. Backroom set-up

I've put these in the probable order of importance, but would be interested to hear other peoples' views. There are other aspects that impact results; finances, luck on the pitch, injuries, fixture lists. But those are very little to do with the manager. I think that the above four are key.

I then thought about each of our recent managers. I'd say Johnson for example was very good on player management and motivation, although started to lose it with Basso and Orr. His team selection was usually good considering the players available, although his tactics were fairly agricultural. Player buying was poor, but player selling was decent. His backroom set-up was atrocious.

Millen I'd say was fairly strong in player dealing, not in much else.

So McInnes...

Player management and motivation

I'm uncertain here. He's clearly good at selling the club to players. There was a lot of positive talk when he first came about the change in atmosphere.

But I still don't see a lot of players improving. I'm not blaming Del for Fontaine's loss of form, but with the exception of Woolford (and arguably Adomah) I have not seen any player improve significantly since Del came in. I'd like to see far more development of players like Ribeiro, James Wilson, Reid, Edwards and Burns. I'd have liked to see Pitman and Bolasie and Wood to have been more prolific when with us (although for all three there is the excuse of too weak a central spine to allow real attacking verve).

In terms of mentality on the pitch, he gives the players something in terms of dynamism. The City performances against Cardiff and Palace were, in terms of speed of thought, better than I've seen at City since Danny Wilson was manager (arguably the Johnson years in League One showed as good passing and movement). But there isn't the never-say-die attitude we had under Johnson, and the amount of times teams run through our midfield is embarassing. I wonder whether getting the right mentality back is about getting rid of tired personnel as much as anything.

Tactics / team selection

Poor with some positives. The Millwall team selection was astonishing. It's clear that he is trying to be far too clever for his own good.

Maybe one day we will wake up this season and suddenly our players are ten times cleverer than the opposition, able to adapt to new formations in the blink of an eye. I also note that Mick McCarthy said he got completely out-thought in the Ipswich game. But all I saw yesterday was a winning team being changed.

I would offer Del two small mitigations:

1. Injuries. If Foster AND Bryan were both out injured he couldn't really play the same formation as for Peterborough even had he wanted to. This, of course, doesn't in any way explain the decision to drop Baldock.
3. Poverty of team. The fact is, we do have a very poor spine to the team. It does seem like if we play a certain way for more than a couple of games, the opposition work us out and can counter it, with better players. Note that when we started doing better yesterday, it wasn't by playing the same formation as against Peterborough.

These do not excuse it. I used to complain that the same players started every week irrespective of result. Now there is the opposite problem: there appears to be very little correlation between quality of contribution and likelihood of starting the next game. Del needs to be a bit less clever.

Player dealing

I would say that, on balance, this is positive. It can be broken down into signings, missed signings, and players allowed to leave.

Of all non-loan signings / contract extensions, we have four good (Cunningham, Davies, Baldock, Anderson), four half-decent back-up players (Bates, Pearson, Foster, Carey), and two that are clearly not good enough (Morris, Wilson). Pearson and Foster arguably fall into the latter category, but I think Pearson has scored too many goals to justify that, and Foster has only had one truly atrocious performance (against Derby). Bates may yet prove himself to be a good player. The poorer players were signed on short-term contracts, and apparently on low wages, so we are not talking Nicky Hunts here.

Cisse and Bikey were disappointing misses, but their wages were astronomical. We have no idea bout the wages of players like Beevers, Shittu, or Collinson, but it does feel like we could have made a play for them. I think it was a mistake not being more decisive in the purchase of Keogh and just splashing the cash before anyone turned up. But with tighter belts it's harder and he's working under tough restrictions: we have less money than pretty much any other club in the division.

Regarding sales, when McInnes took over he still had Hunt, James, Stewart on the books. I'm disappointed about Ribeiro and Bolasie not being developed and as a result being sold. I think there was little he could do with Bolasie; we didn't have a strong enough team last season to play two flair wingers, and Adomah was better. I recall turning to my mate when Bolasie came on against Coventry and complaining he wouldn't achieve anything, so what did I know?

Backroom set-up

Jury has to be out on this one. We can't say that the Academy is fixed and functioning, because we need to see it churning out players. A similar point for our scouting network, which still needs work.

Del's actions come out as broadly positive in my view, as there is more of a sense of purpose and direction. The club feels as though it at least has an idea of how to go about developing its set-up. We've brought several players in for the development squad who you would expect to see appearing from next season. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs stability and yet, ironically, it's the aspect that will always be the greatest gamble - you will never know how well the chickens are incubated before they're hatched.

But there needs to be better communication. As mentioned by someone in the Dave L thread, Wigan and Swansea are great examples of what needs to be done here (and it requires the chairman as well as the manager). I think there would be more support for Del if he came out and said (if this is the case):

• I want a players to be highly intelligent tactically, playing fast, passing football. This will mean tailoring our squad to the opposition. It will mean worse performances and worse results initially, and there will be mistakes along the way. But when we pull it off we will have a mentality in place that will allow us to take on the very best and win, as I did when I beat [insert large club].
• I need to recruit the right players for this system. This takes time. We are working on it but I will not be hurried into signings that could hamstring the club (to be fair he has already said this).
• I want our academy set-up to be producing players by [x]. It hasn't been as successful as we'd like to date because of [? the attitude of youth players today? Challenges in movement from youth to professional football?.

Conclusion

I know that I'm a happy clapper so I will be shot down anyway, but when looking at this (and initially feeling really depressed), I feel slightly more positive about Del.

I feel he has done enough to deserve one more transfer window on player dealing, and his backroom set-up looks exciting. His major black mark is tactics and team selection - he needs to stop trying to be bloody clever and start picking players on the basis of quality / form. But it has worked on occasion and if toned down and more subtle may be a success with better players. He also needs to show he can improve players' outputs so that they are performing better with us. I would expect to see Reid, Edwards, and Burns start getting some game time.

This club has been missing the same thing for a long time. We need two new centre backs and two new centre midfielders (one if we can get Danns). I think that close assessment of managerial skills just about tilts the balance in favour of keeping del and giving him a chance to address that.

Just about.

Didn't Brian Clough once say that 'team selection' was 95% of the job ? If you agree with that point of view then nothing else can 'tilt the balance'.

[hippy273]

Not quite IMO.

Difficult to quantify, but I think the measure is the gap between results and aspirations. If ManU finished 6th it would be thought of a disaster. There are a fair few at the Emirates calling for Wenger's head. Both those clubs will still have had much better results than most. On the other hand, Yeovil (for example) have massively overachieved in the last ten years for the size of club they are.

In our case we, for some strange reason, seem to think that we have a right to Championship football, with the occassional run out in the Prem. In reality we are a yo-yo club beween Championship and League 1. Where we are now is more or less where we should be, historically speaking.

Frustrating thing about now is the we don't seem to taken advantage of the shed loads of cash spent - and I guess that is what any sort of management is about - making the most of the assets you have. Clearly we don't do that and our own inflated sense of entitlement is creating a very bad atmosphere.

I think we as a team are the same in some ways, we have overachieved for the size club we are. We are bigger than the Rovers but considering the population of Bristol and the 10,000+ we attract every game? we should have loads loads more fans than we do i think. We just can't get any bigger for reasons such as the stadium and the fact that we are £40mil in debt. I guess you could say we are a big club that has been limited to expanding and that is pretty much the only reason that has held us back.

Managers can only work with what they have or can afford which is why i'm backing Del, but he needs to start putting out the right team!

[Uncle Albert]

Didn't Brian Clough once say that 'team selection' was 95% of the job ? If you agree with that point of view then nothing else can 'tilt the balance'.

I think he could well be right. We have enough decent players at the club to be in a better position than we are. We all know that. And we all know we don't play the strongest team [in our opinion, not Del's] that we could.

If we picked our best players, even out of the current bunch, in a formation that suited [FOUR FOUR TWO], then I think we'd be a much better position straight away

[Tom Fleuriot]

Didn't Brian Clough once say that 'team selection' was 95% of the job ? If you agree with that point of view then nothing else can 'tilt the balance'.

Not heard that quote, and agree with your logic. I was undecided about whether to say team selection is more important than motivation when listing the different managerial qualities. I'm not sure I'd agree that it's 95%. Injuries and available personnel impact your ability to select the right team, and I'd say that motivating players is as important and picking the right players (although you could argue it's a subset - you have to identify the motivated players and then play them...). On balance I'd say it's a very important part of the job, and the core aspect on which Del is failing, but I also think it's the area that is easiest to learn rather than have come naturally.

But I can see why somebody may want to take Clough's word on it rather than mine...

[Threshersleftboot]

Without getting too complex about what qualities a manager needs i have got a very simple way of deciding if he is good enough and that is look at the club one year ago and look at it now have we progressed are we going in the right direction not just in terms of league position but everything about the club is the fan base growing,have we got a better squad than a year ago,is there more of a feelgood factor around the club regarding team spirit and the way the fans feel.If i am honest im'e not sure if Del scores on any of those points.

[Robbored]

Theres a lot of 'psycho babble' on this thread.

The bottom line is that all managers are evaluated by the results they achieve.

Its not complicated.

[Randy Marsh]

Theres a lot of 'psycho babble' on this thread.

The bottom line is that all managers are evaluated by the results they achieve.

Its not complicated.

Exactly this. Look at the table. There's a problem.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Theres a lot of 'psycho babble' on this thread.

The bottom line is that all managers are evaluated by the results they achieve.

Its not complicated.

To be pedantic, it's not psychobabble. Psychobabble is talking about psychology or psychiatry without particular accuracy or relevance. None of that is happening here. This is attempting to analyse outputs of a football manager in a forensic manner that prevents ignorant statements from being made about the quality of that manager based solely on the results achieved without any intelligent contextualisation.

You could say there's a lot of psychotic babble I guess, depending on your perspective. But even if you think it's overcomplicated it's not really psychotic.

The bottom line is I'd suggest you just call it "babble".

Far less complicated.

Edit - I'm sorry, but I cannot resist making the point that you have previously said Johnson was a poor manager irrespective of the results. You really cannot have it both ways.

[ralphindevon]

Sorry, I haven't had time to read all posts thoroughly.

I think the one thing missing from our managers for the last few seasons, is the ability to not only identify players needed to strengthen our squad, but more importantly persuade them players to come to Bristol.

Del himself admitted frustration in trying to bring in players he wanted in the summer. Well for me, a decent manager is one who good players will want to uproot their families to come and play for.

[Robbored]

To be pedantic, it's not psychobabble. Psychobabble is talking about psychology or psychiatry without particular accuracy or relevance. None of that is happening here. This is attempting to analyse outputs of a football manager in a forensic manner that prevents ignorant statements from being made about the quality of that manager based solely on the results achieved without any intelligent contextualisation.

You could say there's a lot of psychotic babble I guess, depending on your perspective. But even if you think it's overcomplicated it's not really psychotic.

The bottom line is I'd suggest you just call it "babble".

Far less complicated.

I had regular overdoses of psychobabble during my NHS career and it is an esoteric term and probably the wrong world in this context.

I should have used pseudo babble.

[Chivs]

A very good and thought provoking post.

I've often wondered what makes a good manager and have thought that this equation sums it up:

"Lots of money to spend on players" = "Good Manager"

I back this up with Ferguson as an example. He didn't win anything at ManUre for years. He then got lucky with "the kids". This meant ManUre qualified for Europe and were given shed loads of money. Ferguson became a good manager.

Wenger is getting criticism for poor results but this is the man who purchased the invincibles. The difference now? Arsenal have to balance their books for the stadium. Wenger has become a "poor manager".

There are countless examples of managers who are good (presumably most think that the managers of teams that get promoted are "good") but then become average (Hughes, Jones, Keane etc). This is just an example of managers getting lucky. I think that Johnson falls into this bracket. There's no doubt that Johnson led us to our best position for decades. However, although he's doing well at Yeovil again, I doubt he is considered a "good manager" by Ipswich or Barnsley etc.

I think that managers are generally given far too much credit. I suspect that, like most organisations, success comes about due to one or two individual players.

[Tom Fleuriot]

I had regular overdoses of psychobabble during my NHS career and it is an esoteric term and probably the wrong world in this context.

I should have used pseudo babble.

Yeah, that would be fine.

[Rob k]

A very good and thought provoking post.

I've often wondered what makes a good manager and have thought that this equation sums it up:

"Lots of money to spend on players" = "Good Manager"

I back this up with Ferguson as an example. He didn't win anything at ManUre for years. He then got lucky with "the kids". This meant ManUre qualified for Europe and were given shed loads of money. Ferguson became a good manager.

Wenger is getting criticism for poor results but this is the man who purchased the invincibles. The difference now? Arsenal have to balance their books for the stadium. Wenger has become a "poor manager".

There are countless examples of managers who are good (presumably most think that the managers of teams that get promoted are "good") but then become average (Hughes, Jones, Keane etc). This is just an example of managers getting lucky. I think that Johnson falls into this bracket. There's no doubt that Johnson led us to our best position for decades. However, although he's doing well at Yeovil again, I doubt he is considered a "good manager" by Ipswich or Barnsley etc.

I think that managers are generally given far too much credit. I suspect that, like most organisations, success comes about due to one or two individual players.

First time I've ever heard fergie getting lucky with the kids!!

Ultimately he had the balls to play them, best manager ever for me.

Excellent post by the op, managers are judged purely on results which is why some fans are on the managers back,

Mcinnes has a tough job here, the whole club needed restructuring which won't happen overnight.

[paulcitymod]

Good post and thread for thought provocation

There is a lot to being a manager, whether it is a company, sales team, nhs ward, whatever and there are several skills that need to be very good to do it correctly. Its not easy to be good at them all. I am a manager of people, have been for many years, i'm good at some things, crap at others probably

I was at the Millwall game and I saw the worst and best of the current manager.

Best. The changes made transformed the team so tactically well I thought he was excellent at that moment. If the chances were taken by baldock and Danns we would have won the game, and Skuse bossed the midfield from half time on, we looked alright actually for most of the second half, not great, but Millwall suddenly looked very poor

Worst. The first half the team had no umph, nothing whatsoever. No motivation. No running. And therein lies the problem. I know that motivated and happy staff perform very well, even as headless chickens, even not knowing what they should be doing, they somehow get it done

I am constantly amazed that ex-footballers become managers with huge responsibilities and control budgets with no formal managerial people management and financial training whatsoever.

Derek McInnes to me is a great salesman as mentioned above and a half decent tactician so there are 2 very good attributes. But he needs help getting the team motivated and happy. He is not getting anywhere near the best out of those guys

[Timbo7]

The only relevant qualification that most club managers have is a player's experience of a range of preceding managers - and in the vast majority of cases those preceding managers were actually no better qualified.

Of course, as in any walk of life if you indiscriminately promote 1,000 bus drivers you will find that a few of them are better at managing than they ever were at driving buses BUT the vast majority will not be. But no worries as long as every other bus company is managed by an indiscriminately selected driver, if your manager has just a modicum of aptitude for management you will be reasonably successful - in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King!

At our club, as at most others, there is no sign of a long-term plan or the manager's football philosophy - BUT where we differ from many others is that our manager seems to have no appreciation for a particular universal truth. If you do not or cannot explain to your staff how you would like them to perform you then the means of performance is left entirely to them - this is commonly the case at many clubs and if you have the right mix of players with the confidence and freedom to perform as they would wish to - you can play excellent football.

In thirty years I can recall two particular stand-out examples

1. Defeat of Crystal Palace (Wright and Bright etc.) - League Cup Round 3 - late 1988 - inspired somewhat more by Ralph Milne than by Joe Jordan
2. Defeat of Sheffield United live on Sky in late 2007 - inspired somewhat more by David Noble than by Gary Johnson

If either of these games had anything to do with the manager then why the 19 year gap between them?

DM's trouble is that he either does not appreciate the need for self-belief and freedom in his players OR he is simply clueless in his attempts to help them play in this way - Disturbingly he seems more concerned with humiliating players who he feels have let him down. Meanwhile we are now destroying defenders' careers for fun just as in Gary's era we destroyed strikers.

Please Keith and Board - don't let Derek end any more careers at the Minted One's expense