Do managers make any difference?

Not according to "Soccernomics" by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski. They took all managers who'd worked for at least 5 full seasons in the English professional game between 1973 and 2010 - a total of 251 men(from a grand total of 699 managers - really bad managers tend not to last 5 years in the business). They then examined how they performed relative to their players' wage bill - that is the size of the wage bill relative to others in the same division (they had already shown that 90% of the variation in League position can be attributed to this factor - that is those clubs with the highest wage bill finishe highest in the league).
They found that somewhere between 40 and 70 of the managers made a positive difference - that is the clubs they managed tended to overachieve relative to their wage bill, from the elite group of 251 who've spent at least 5 years in the game that's less than 30%, from the overall figure of 699 its about a tenth.

Top 10 managers are:

1.Bob Paisley
2.Bobby Robson
3.Alex Ferguson
4.Arsene Wenger
5.David Moyes
6.Kenny Dalglish
7.John Beck
8.Dave Mackay
9.Howard Kendall
10.Steve Tilson

3 of our managers feature in the top 40:

22. Mel Machin
32. Danny Wilson
40 Dave Bassett


In conclusion - the vast majority of managers appear to have almost no impact on their teams performance! As Johan Cruijff said - "If your players are better than your opponents, 90 percent of the time you will win".

They also say that most transfers are a waste of money which would be better spent on wage bills which is the true correlation between league position and spending.

 

In conclusion the list is flawed because Bryan Robson is second.

 

Ehem.....Bobby Robson.

 

Ahem. Bobby Robson...

 

Oh aye. In my defence I am at work posting on the sly while listening to my colleague witter on while I feign interest. It's not easy.

 

Great post and tends to suggest that the argument that we are a natural championship club because we have been in this division for most of the last 30 years is flawed. Natural position is based on the total wage bill which, I imagine would put us in League One. I would add I mean realistic wage bill - not when we were spending our way to administration.

It would be great if each club publically stated their wage bill at the start of the season, it would probably lead to a very different assessment as to which managers were doing a good job or not.

 

They studied the spending of 40 English clubs between 1978 and 1997 and found that the net outlay in transfers only accounted for about 16% of the total variation in league position whilst a massive 92% could be attributed to their wage bill.
Another study done between 1991 and 2010 wage spending still explained 87% of the variation in league position. Over the long term high wages help clubs much more than do spectacular transfers. In short the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish; but what you pay FOR them in transfer fees doesn't seem to make much difference. The market for players wages is pretty efficient while the transfer market isn't. Much of the time clubs buy the wrong players.

 

Is there any comment on or correlation to the Bosman ruling? I wonder if that had an impact on whether wages or transfer fees were of greater importance?

 

Brian Clough?

Surely he should have been in there somewhere?

 

Exactly. I mean look at Leicester, didn't they spend about £15 MILLION ans gained ONE league position. And some people were saying Nigel Pearson is a good manager........

 

I suppose in fairness to Pearson he hasn't had the time to form his own team, he is dealing largely with other people's expensive flops.

My other question would be that in some cases don't you need to spend both? To use Leicester as an example, even if we had matched their wage offer to Drinkwater we would have had to spend a million pound transfer fee. Or is the point that the one million pound spent on Drinkwater would have been better invested on a player who was available on a free? In which case should we never spend a penny on transfers again?

 

Or we could just simplify it and get a manager who goes by the name of Bob or Bobby. Who could we get, hmmmmm....?

 

Get Steve Tilson in. Hillcroft art'.

 

Fair point lad. If we waited for free agents and save money on transfers, we could then offer a higher wage bill to tempt in player. Then again if you wait, they might go somewhere else before becoming free.

 

Seems quite complicated this football management business

 

I know, anyone would have thought you'd need a professional manager to come and do it!

 

Always argued that bob paisley was the best manager

 

Re: Brian Clough?

Brian Clough would undoubtedly have been near the top but Forest were not a Public Limted Company but a Private members club and therefore did not publish any accounts!

 

Re: Brian Clough?

So, to prove that managers don't make a difference, he's listed managers that made a difference?!

 

Surely transfer fees and wages are correlated though aren't they? The more you spend on a player, the more you'd expect them to be payed.