So, what is the best way to assess how successful a manager has been? A study by Stefan Szymanski analysed the accounts of 80% of English football clubs between 1973 and 2010 to compare wages spent on players and the relative performance of managers. He had previously found that there was a 90% correlation between wages paid and league position and theorised that the other 10% could be accounted for by the manager.
The managers that came out best in the study makes interesting reading. The top 5 were Bob Paisley, Alex Ferguson, Bobby Robson, Arsene Wenger and David Moyes. From the lower leagues, Paul Sturrock, Ronnie Moore, John Beck and Martin Allen. There were other names from the lower leagues, that subsequently didn't manage league clubs.
Interestingly, most of the names had a rationale behind their success. Bob Paisley (inherited a great team), Alex Ferguson (benefited greatly from the class of 92), Arsene Wenger (used revolutionary training and dietary techniques in the most successful early years), Bobby Robson (utilised scouting abroad), Paul Sturrock and John Beck (used statistical analysis of the merits of long-ball football).
This suggests that managers can make a difference if they have a unique insight/advantage they can utilise. Equally, this advantage can disappear quickly, once others "catch up". So, while Szymanski's study might be a useful way of rating a manager's performance, it may not have great predictive powers moving forward. For example, John Beck's results subsequent to the study were 8 wins from 48 games at Histon. Paul Sturrock won just 6 from 30 at Yeovil (and 67 from 161 at Southend). Ronnie Moore won just 19/59 at Hartlepool.
One name on the list that has continued to produce excellent results is Martin Allen, who has rattled up 50 wins from 108 matches at Barnet.
My take from this study is that I would examine the records of outperformance, in relation to budget of any prospective manager, but would also look at the reason for that outperformance and assess whether it is replicable and likely to continue going forward.
At least stack the odds in our favour...as the wheel spins...
The managers that came out best in the study makes interesting reading. The top 5 were Bob Paisley, Alex Ferguson, Bobby Robson, Arsene Wenger and David Moyes. From the lower leagues, Paul Sturrock, Ronnie Moore, John Beck and Martin Allen. There were other names from the lower leagues, that subsequently didn't manage league clubs.
Interestingly, most of the names had a rationale behind their success. Bob Paisley (inherited a great team), Alex Ferguson (benefited greatly from the class of 92), Arsene Wenger (used revolutionary training and dietary techniques in the most successful early years), Bobby Robson (utilised scouting abroad), Paul Sturrock and John Beck (used statistical analysis of the merits of long-ball football).
This suggests that managers can make a difference if they have a unique insight/advantage they can utilise. Equally, this advantage can disappear quickly, once others "catch up". So, while Szymanski's study might be a useful way of rating a manager's performance, it may not have great predictive powers moving forward. For example, John Beck's results subsequent to the study were 8 wins from 48 games at Histon. Paul Sturrock won just 6 from 30 at Yeovil (and 67 from 161 at Southend). Ronnie Moore won just 19/59 at Hartlepool.
One name on the list that has continued to produce excellent results is Martin Allen, who has rattled up 50 wins from 108 matches at Barnet.
My take from this study is that I would examine the records of outperformance, in relation to budget of any prospective manager, but would also look at the reason for that outperformance and assess whether it is replicable and likely to continue going forward.
At least stack the odds in our favour...as the wheel spins...
ointy:
