It's been a surprising season in some ways.

Southampton, how about that.

West Ham and Swansea, very impressive. And Pardew

Liverpool losing to pretty much everyone.

Relegation battle looking promising again.


But what I'm really after is that plenty of Premier League clubs were able to spend some decent money in the summer, after yet again increased a TV deal.

The manager is the main man in charge of transfers, which players he's prepared to sell and buy. With so many PL teams with cash to spend, is the manager's role increasing? As in that you need a good manager to buy the right players and you might gain a real advantage like that? Maybe it's not so much the transfer kit that matters any more, but how you spend it?

Southampton, under their brand new manager Krueger, bought very successfully Pelle, Forster and Tadic, also Mane, Long and Alderweireld. Refused to sell Schneiderlin.

West Ham have had transfer hits in Sakho, Valencia, Koyate, Creswell, Song.

Swansea have bought Montero, Sigurdsson, Fabianski.


I think we can all agree that at the end of the day it's the players that really matter, not even the greatest manager in the world can make a bad group of players champions and not even a bad manager can fail with an excellent group of players.

With the Premier League clubs having some decent money available, is the manager's role increasing in the Premier League, when almost all of them have some decent money to spend? Are bad managers getting exposed and good managers vindicated when almost all of them are having the resources to show their true ability?

No, the best manager cant seem to manage a point against Crystal Palace.

RIP Rodgers

To an extent that's true. However some managers are better with limited budget in comparison to big budgets. Mark Hughes did wonders at Blackburn but failed at City. Does that make him a bad manager? Not necessarily. Big budgets in mid table teams will always beg the question that what is their goal? Hull spent quite a lot but what are they aiming for? In what circumstances should Steve Bruce be sacked?

Players are extremely important obviously. Some players can carry a manager despite his flaws. Like Spain with Del Bosque. On the other hand sometimes a manager is more important than the players. No other manager IMO could have done what Simeone did with Atletico last year. Maybe Klopp. But even Klopp had bigger stars with him.

In PL, the money will increase with each term. Budget will increase. Pressure on managers will increase too as they will be asked to do a bit more. But as I said, what are they actually aiming for? If we take big clubs in consideration. Liverpool, United and Arsenal should be fighting for the title with their budget. But neither of them will this year. Different circumstances for each team though but it's what's expected from them and they won't deliver. If it continues to happen then I am sure neither of the managers managing them will last.

So to answer the question, the importance was always there but it's more highlighted now. I guess pressure is a better word than importance.

Managers are always important, if you are not using your players correctly and coaching them to a high standard it doesn't matter who they are they will look like crap.

Believe me I know lol.

As more teams have more money and continue to field stronger line ups, I'd say yes. Managers can't just line up 4-4-2 or "meh, whatever" formations and "out quality" 70% of their opposition anymore. I'd say more games in the prem require tactical awareness and knowledge of the oppositions strength and weaknesses than ever

With the riches of the PL that have grown so vast, personally I believe that even managers of mid-table clubs have better means and possibilities to "express" themselves nowadays. Or get exposed.

Now a lot of PL clubs can put together transfer kits worth of tens of millions of pounds, giving managers more to work with, able to bring in the kind of players they want, quality players, too.

When you had tiny transfer budgets, perhaps it didn't matter that much whether you had an average manager in charge or a good one, both could do very little to strengthen their team. Now when more and more PL clubs have some decent money to spend, differences between good and bad managers might become more apparent when they will have more to work with, a greater chance to have a true impact.

Imho it's important for a good manager know how to work with tiny budget. A good manager can be seen from this. But for example Southampton's manager Koeman did a good job,in a "difficult" moment where the most important part of the team was sold, buying good and functional players.

Welcome mate!

sometimes everything just has to click. there are many different management styles. Good managers play to their strengths and the strengths of their players.

Managers will always be important, as mole said - a manager can either make an average player look great and or a great player look average. Number 1 role of the manager is to get the best out of their players.

Back in the day, you played one system and only one. So everything was predictable both in your team and your opponent's. Now, teams switch tactics game to game if needed and even within a game in some circumstances. There's a lot more thinking that needs to go into managing.

So yeah, having modern and good managers are more of a factor.

Peccadillo wrote:sometimes everything just has to click. there are many different management styles. Good managers play to their  strengths and the strengths of their players.

Managers will always be important, as mole said - a manager can either make an average player look great and or a great player look average. Number 1 role of the manager is to get the best out of their players.

sportsczy wrote:Back in the day, you played one system and only one.  So everything was predictable both in your team and your opponent's.  Now, teams switch tactics game to game if needed and even within a game in some circumstances.  There's a lot more thinking that needs to go into managing.

So yeah, having modern and good managers are more of a factor.  

I was kind of trying to look at it from transfers and general "playing philosophy" - what kind of a team the manager wants to build - point of view. After all, players at clubs change at a rapid rate. You look at the squads of most Premier League clubs now and, say, three seasons back, and you have maybe half a dozen same players (who actually were making appearances back then and are now).

And managers are in charge of transfers and decide what style of players they bring in. And at the end of the day it's the quality of players that largely decide your success. So, what I'm basically saying is that the more money you have, the greater the chances that good managers will show their worth and bad managers will get exposed (by failing to build and maintain a competitive squad).

I've always admired managers that took average squads and still competed with the top... for example, Bielsa is a great example of that. OM squad hasn't changed from last year. In fact, we lost Valbuena. Yet, we finished middle of the pack last year with crap football style and now we're on top of the league playing beautifully. That's what a truly good manager can do.

It's a balance imo... you have to buy good enough players. But you also need a manager that knows how to best use them.

Personally, i have never been a fan of managers also handling transfers. They should have the power of veto... but you need a dedicated person to handle transfers. Good managers aren't necessarily good talent evaluators until they get a player in their club.

Carlo's never handled transfers in his career and i think that's a smart move by him.

sportsczy wrote:I've always admired managers that took average squads and still competed with the top... for example, Bielsa is a great example of that. OM squad hasn't changed from last year. In fact, we lost Valbuena. Yet, we finished middle of the pack last year with crap football style and now we're on top of the league playing beautifully. That's what a truly good manager can do.

I also find it admirable that a manager can really get the most out of any given squad, but that's partially why I said "in the Premier League" because that's where even the mid-table clubs have nowadays some serious money to spend. If OM's squad has hardly changed from last year; have the other clubs been able to strengthen how much, either?

sportsczy wrote:Personally, i have never been a fan of managers also handling transfers. They should have the power of veto... but you need a dedicated person to handle transfers. Good managers aren't necessarily good talent evaluators until they get a player in their club.

I feel pretty much completely different about this one. I believe the manager should totally be in charge of transfers. Sure, he can have his scouting team "sign" a player or two, but, to me, it's the manager and the manager only who must have a vision of what kind of a team he wants to build, what kind of players he wants to sign, and therefore be the one calling the shots in the market.