Nick Kaufman said:
I don't think that's right. The separate GM/Coach works in American sports and structurally has the advantage of the two having different time horizons, the GM a medium-long term one, the coach a short term one. The problem arises when the people doing the grocery shopping shift the blame for their failings to the coach.
I'm not sure i'm in general agreement with you Nick, but I know that there will be some merit to your words, so I'll elaborate a bit on what I'm getting at. we're here to duscuss after all. A manager builds a team,a squad, or used to, and whilst he is in charge of the week to week, game to game management, he has to be or ought to be thinking long term too, because stability was seen as a good thing at football clubs. When Ferguson blooded the kids, was he thinking short term? When he signed Keane did he think he had a player for a couple of seasons until someone better came along? Or Rooney, or Ferdinand, or Schmeichel I don't think so. Good managers built teams around players who would, if they achieved their potential, or if they were already proven, be stalwarts of the team/squad for a significant length of time. Players would be added yearly but Managers would tend to avoid a major overhaul, because in the short term it weakens the wide week to week as players have to get used to each other. Shankly; Paisley; Clough; Ferguson; Wenger and Mourinho bought players who would make up the nucleus of a side for years to come. And it worked.
But, i accept the game has changed. But, Directors of Football will still think in the relative short term, a team is underperforming, possibly flirting with relegation, not challenging for the targetted top four spot. Any five year plan or three year plan goes out the window, a new manager comes in and we start again. See Sunderland, see Villa, they are the extreme but Liverpool and Spurs are also tending this way to an extent that i'd say is significant and detrimental, if we allow for the fact that managers are not getting as much say in the player aquisition department. Most/many football people will tell you that the two most important qualities of a manger are or used to be recruitment and man management. The latter must become tougher when the former is somewhat out of your hands.
I'm not sure it's apt to compare to an American model. But I'm happy to read more on the matter. I do think what works in Spain might not be what works in England. Or maybe that's the way we're going and the role of the manager is diminished to that of coach and then some but not too much. And maybe the days of the long term manager executing a long term plan and being the best man for the job, long term, maybe those days are over. It seems to me that year in year out Barca and Real are happy to get in a new manager because as long as the players are provided a relatively good coach will do just fine with what he's got. I dunno. I might in this regard be old fashioned in thinking that managers know the most about players and teams and squads and tactics, and whilst it is a big job, and help from the wings is needed, the manager has to be in charge. But then i only have the words of Ferguson ringing in my ears and i tend to beleive him, cos he was pretty good and smart with it.
But...he might have been the last of the great ones and an outlier. I do think there's room for discussion on this matter. And this post might not be a response to yours...but i have to go out now so I'm rushing a wee bit.
EDIT: this is in part a response to DLew but he needs to wash his cheese more often for me to directly reply. Fuckin stilton welt.