This has to be the most simple, albeit complex question to answer: who should take most of the credit for the team's success: the manager or the players?

I'm sure most of you would agree with me if I said that both of them are important, and any club couldn't possibly function without either of them. I'm also sure that most of you would agree with me if I said that it depends on the case in hand. Sometimes, it's the manager who should take all the credit for the win, and sometimes it's the players, and in most cases, it's both.

But there are times when you can't help but think: "dammit, these players or so talented, they would win even with a trained monkey in charge." Or: "This manager is so unbelievably competent, he would win a trophy or two even if you gave him a third-division team to compete in top-flight football."

But then you get confused when reality hits you like a truck with dozens of exceptions to that rule, leaving you like a hollow shell gazing at the night sky with only one sentence playing in a continuous loop in your mind: I know nothing.

You have Ancelotti, a man who struggled a lot at the helm of PSG, and couldn't even reach the quarter-final of the CL or even win Ligue I in his first year at the club, signs for Madrid, wins the double in his first year, beating Klopp's Dortmund, Pep's Bayern and Simeone's Atlético in the process. Who should take the credit in this case? Him? Or the players? If it's him ,then why couldn't he do the same with PSG? And if it's the players, then why couldn't they win the CL with Mourinho? And If it's both, Then why did they end up trophyless the year after?

If the managers are so important, how come an incompetent like Enrique could manage to win the treble in his first year with Barcelona? Is it because he had Messi? So what, Tata also had Messi. Is it because he had MSN? So what, He also had MSN last year and couldn't manage to come even close to the level of his treble-winning season. Is it because it's a cycle and players have their ups and downs? Then how come Manchester United was unbelievably consistent domestically under Sir Alex winning the league almost once every two seasons for almost 20 years? Didn't those players have their ups and downs as well?

If the players are so important, and all you need is a group of world-class players to win trophies, then how come Pellegrini's Madrid couldn't win a thing? How come Tata's Barcelona couldn't win a thing? How come Inter was unable to maintain their level after Mourinho left? How come Bayern was unable to maintain their level after Heyneckes left?

So we all agree that both of them are important? Really? Think again. Simeone's Atlético is the prime example of a team that used to be nothing and rose to greatness under the guidance of one man. If both of them are important then how come Simeone was able to turn a team of nobodies and losers into a first-ballot hall of fame team of world beaters?

Just when you thought you finally found the answer, an exception pops up and proves you wrong. There are plenty of exceptions to disprove the theory that managers are the most important. In the same way, there are plenty of exceptions to disprove the theory that players are the most important. And finally, there are plenty of exceptions to disprove the theory that both of them are important.

So GL, I'm interested to know what each and everyone of you thinks. Who's the most important: the war general on the sidelines or the soldiers on the field? Let me know!

Um, Tito would say the players but I like to think for a team to be truly successful, a balance must be maintained. Without a proper manager, the players tend to be lost or lacking direction. Without the proper players, not even the great Zidane and his luck can make them win 2 UCL titles in a row.

So I don't think one is anymore important than the other. They are both equal parts to a whole.

You have your army of soldiers and you have your general . You wonder which trully wins the war. Let me clear this out for you. The logistics.

Logistics in our case , is money .

So there you go , use it as best as you can and you will win more wars than others do. Also helps if you have as much as you can , i've heard

Hope this helps.

They are both important, and the best teams had a combination of both, but if I had to give an answer it would probably be players.

Because they are the ones who win the matches.

Coaches can't score goals for the players, and can't make saves for the team. However, what the best coaches do, is create a platform for players to successfully do the above.

Different coaches have different philosophies on what platforms create success.

Someone like Pep thinks the best way to score goals and not to concede, is by holding on to the ball. That way you have more opportunities of creating chances, which will lead to goals. And by holding the ball, the opposition won't have it, which makes you safe.

Or how about someone like Mourinho who thinks holding on to the ball is risky, and it makes more sense to sit back, force a mistake, then attack the open spaces that the opposition have left unguarded.

But at the end of the day, the quality of the players determine how well their philosophies apply, right?

You can come up with the best footballing system ever, but if the players aren't able to apply what you ask of them it's useless. You can teach them to be able to apply it to a certain level, but it's never going to be the same as having a WC player and teaching them what you want.

The best players are the ones who don't make mistakes. In front of the goal? They score. Against a defender 1v1? They dribble past him. Against an attacker 1v1? They stop him. In tight spaces? They find a way out. Getting pressed from multiple angles? They find a way to pass through the press.

I don't think a coaches will ever have more importance than a footballers because they aren't the ones making the decisions on the field. The best coaches help improve that decision making process, but they aren't the ones making the action in real time.

Before I end my post, I'll add one more thing and that is anyone who believes that coaches have little importance and it's all on the players have a very dopey understanding of the game, and have no clue what they are talking about. As I've said above both are important, but for the thread's purpose, the players naturally have more value.

you need both, however, people go overboard regarding what certain managers bring to the table, and managers themselves want to be superstars by overstating their importance. reason i put the onus more on players is cos we've seen scrubs like lopez caro manage a has-been real madrid side to a second place finish, but its not everyday we see a Leicester happen, or a team of that stance make it into top 4 in a major league

Its probably both important, and there are also other factors involved, with players and managers more or less performing better in some enviroments/clubs than others probably, and different managers able to gel with different kind of players naturally, since everyone has different styles and personalities, etc.

Then add to that a bunch of other factors like luck, money, momentum, etc. But if its just between managers and players, definitely the players are more important. Messi and Ronaldo have gone through so many managers, yet they have kept their team at the top level for so many years probably best example to show this? Mou and Ranieri doing so well one season and disaster the next is another? On the other hand though, theres also been examples of a team completely flip flop after manager change so...but again there were probably other factors as well.

Ultimately the players have more importance, the manager is only there to create favorable circumstances for the players to perform.

Sometimes the manager does such a great job at tactics/motivation that average athletes will achieve an exploit that is far ahead of their potential. Leicester 2016 is the perfect example. No doubt Ranieri played a major role in the title as he was clever enough to identify the strengths of his troop and build the perfect tactic out of it. You can add to that the tremendous grinta mentality he established.

But most of the credit goes to the players because their actions on the field were the exact displaying of Ranieri's intangible help. Throw drama queens Nasri & Balotelli in that squad and the focus is lost.

A team can have the world's best players, without a manager that can select the correct players that play at any given time and determine the strategy for a given game, the team will not succeed. The best example is the 1982 Italy-Brazil game in the World Cup.

@breva, i wouldn't say that team didn't succeed. yes, compared to what was expected many would say they failed but they won many games just baded primarily on the talent that had been assembled. based on talent alone, it was too dangerous a side. win some lose some. even if they had a more conservative coach than tele, who's to say such coach would have selected that same squad or played to their strength. they just couldn't defend, and had a block head up front. i'm not sure why careca didn't go to that tournament

titosantill wrote:@breva, i wouldn't say that team didn't succeed. yes, compared to what was expected many would say they failed but they won many games just baded primarily on the talent that had been assembled. based on talent alone, it was too dangerous a side. win some lose some. even if they had a more conservative coach than tele, who's to say such coach would have selected that same squad or played to their strength. they just couldn't defend, and had a block head up front. i'm not sure why careca didn't go to that tournament

I think that a good manager could have managed the team to a draw, which is what they needed. But, maybe you are right.