The mancityfans.net football forum

If you were to simplify "success" in the game of football into a few broad categories say:-

Manager, ability, transfer nous, tactics, leadership etc
Players, depth of squad, belief, skill, team spirit etc
Support, behaviour, noise, inspiration? etc
Opponent, quality, skill, tactics, blah blah blah

What percentage share would you apportion?

Home grounds accounted for 675 of the 1044 points accumulated last season or 64.7% of the points, safe to say that home ground advantage accounts for 14.7%.

Slim wrote:Home grounds accounted for 675 of the 1044 points accumulated last season or 64.7% of the points, safe to say that home ground advantage accounts for 14.7%.

Would that not be an advantage of 29.4%? (Question, not a statement).

Interesting comment by a rag fan last night was that in time, the city side if they learn to play together in the way they have played thus far this season will eventually be like Barcelona, in that there will be a system that new players will fit into, and everyone knows their job. This is something Ted & I have discussed at length previously and liked the way City appear to be going in that direction.

Eventually the manager becomes superfluous - as seen by the number of managers Barca / Real / Milan have had over the years and still sustained success. Barcelona's success for example was based on the club-wide system implemented by Cryuff in the late 90s and early part of this decade, not as myth would have you believe, by Guardiola being an amazing manager - if he went elsewhere he would likely fail.

The only example I can think of where the manager is not superfluous is United, where he constantly gets the team to punch above its collective weight.

Eeeeez important.

A great manager can get an average team to look great whereas an average manager can get a great team to look average.........

Mmmmm, forgot the question. Sorry :-?

Alioune DVToure wrote:

Slim wrote:Home grounds accounted for 675 of the 1044 points accumulated last season or 64.7% of the points, safe to say that home ground advantage accounts for 14.7%.

Would that not be an advantage of 29.4%? (Question, not a statement).

Yes, although home advantage is not just about support. Huge part of it is to be familiar with surroundings. For example when you are back against the goal for example some familiar thinks help you unconciously position yourself better. Also another huge thing is how big/small the pitch is. Since every team can decide size of the pitch themself, they will usually have size of the pitch that helps their strengths (it was no coincidence that short passing Arsenal always used to have smallest pitch in Highbury and when Keegan was in charge we had the biggest pitch as Keegan preferred quick counterattack football that relied on empty space behind opposition defence).

Not to mention the ability of the crowd to influence the ref.

Im_Spartacus wrote:Interesting comment by a rag fan last night was that in time, the city side if they learn to play together in the way they have played thus far this season will eventually be like Barcelona, in that there will be a system that new players will fit into, and everyone knows their job. This is something Ted & I have discussed at length previously and liked the way City appear to be going in that direction.

Eventually the manager becomes superfluous - as seen by the number of managers Barca / Real / Milan have had over the years and still sustained success. Barcelona's success for example was based on the club-wide system implemented by Cryuff in the late 90s and early part of this decade, not as myth would have you believe, by Guardiola being an amazing manager - if he went elsewhere he would likely fail.

The only example I can think of where the manager is not superfluous is United, where he constantly gets the team to punch above its collective weight.

I saw the future when we played Airtricity.

The finest young talent from across Europe,
playing in a Euro elite league,
with an unprecedented state of the art academy facility....
and playing in the same manner as the first team.

Even when the manager changed players, the style stayed constant.

The manager is by far the biggest influence on how the team plays, thankfully we now have one who understands not only tactics but that the players must complimend each others skills within the system played, he also has transfer nous as the way the team is fitting together with the new players brought in filling the area`s where we had problems.

The attitude of the team again comes from the manager, good man managment gets the best from individuals and gives confidence to players because they know where they stand and what is expected for the good of the club, you can see in interveiws with players the winner mentality that was missing for so long at the club.

The supporters play their part as well and can lift players to give that extra effort, so ground advantage does come into it.

But the biggest thing of all is luck, sheer bloody good fortune that a number of things come together at the same time to creat something special over and above the norm,

Not forgetting Lottery wins ...

A large part I'd say,about as much as what players we have,maybe a little bit less.
This is why I think that changing is not something to be afraid of.
Once you realise that what you are doing isn’t working we should consider changing our path.
To me it stirkes me as being easy and comfortable not to switch when one gets to the point.
Therefore I think the manager is important but not to the point where one makes him untouchable.
For me anybody who has an understanding of the job and certaian characteristics can do the job.How much of a budget the manager has is more important in my thinking.

Hopefully we will find out very soon when Baconface dies

Okay. Ive had a tipple but this will still be smarter than slims attempts at basic algebra it seems.

Sports where the manager matters most over the course of a season and at what number of wins or influence %

NFL -- diffence between champions and playoff teams -- 30% impact. Most in any professional sport
Football -- in the prem its about a 10 pt swing between the wannabes and the fucking badass motherfuckers.
American college football is about 2 wins per season between the good and the great
Baseball is a tilt of about 6-8 wins a year between the top shelf managers and those vying to be in that group
Rugby seems to be irrelevant but only because im clueless about the sport with regard to tactics. Looks like the HULK VS the THING to most Americans so what do i know?
Cricket seems to be really really influenced by the bowling selection and based on the pitch and the weather seems like a monkey could pick the right bowlers.
Horse racing is all about steroids. And bulemia. duh.
Bowling is about how much you jack off and how antisocial you were as a child so litte manager infliuence there.
Cycling seems to have some team strategy, if you consider the team doping expert a manager then they pop to the top of the list.
What about F1? I loves the open wheel racing, but its dog eat dog. These guys wish their teammates would die 95% of the time.
NBA? Cant believe they still pretend to have coaches. Sorry excuse.
NHL they matter yeah but less than the guy paid to give the best player on the opposing team a concussion and ruin their career.

What else?