Andrea Pirlo (85 Viewers)

[Robee]

Can you show me some statistical facts that state managers don’t make a difference? Just to make this interesting here are a few to prove they do:

Bayern: Kovac to Flick
Juve: Del Neri to Conte
Milan: Gattuso to Pioli
Man United: Sir Alex to everyone else
Liverpool: Rodgers to Klopp
Chelsea: Ranieri to Mourinho

The list is absolutely endless. I’m guessing I’ve misunderstood your post because you surely can’t think managers don’t make a difference

Instead of giving some -pardon me- quite useless examples of teams that spend millions before or after their coaching switches, actually use the statistics. There is a shitoad of literature proving it doesn't make a difference with the same players...

For instance this one: over a period of 10 years in Spanish football:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592111/

Summary: short shock effect, long term effect non-existent.

The reason we've sucked this year is... not having Emre Can. Say what?

Said no one . He's being mentioned since he's a decent utility player. Seeing as the other side uses Kulu, he crossed my mind...

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Strickland]

Instead of giving some -pardon me- quite useless examples of teams that spend millions before or after their coaching switches, actually use the statistics. There is a shitoad of literature proving it doesn't make a difference with the same players...

For instance this one: over a period of 10 years in Spanish football:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592111/

Summary: short shock effect, long term effect non-existent.

Said no one . He's being mentioned since he's a decent utility player. Seeing as the other side uses Kulu, he crossed my mind...

That one is only about mid season coach changes and they only go as far as 20 matches before and after coach change. Of course most mid season coach changes lead to status quo, the coach has no time to really implement any ideas, they can mostly try to inspire players and that can't get you far lol. Palermo and Genoa are both good examples of what happens if you have trigger happy owners, one in Serie B and one lucky to still be in Serie A.

However such statistics don't mean that Atletico are dumb to pay Simeone more than any of their players or that Allegri wouldn't do better than Pirlo with the same players. I'd argue some true midtable coaches like Ivan Juric or de Zerbi would be good bets to do better than Pirlo and they'd probably cost the same.

 

[Robee]

That one is only about mid season coach changes and they only go as far as 20 matches before and after coach change. Of course most mid season coach changes lead to status quo, the coach has no time to really implement any ideas, they can mostly try to inspire players and that can't get you far lol. Palermo and Genoa are both good examples of what happens if you have trigger happy owners, one in Serie B and one lucky to still be in Serie A.

However such statistics don't mean that Atletico are dumb to pay Simeone more than any of their players or that Allegri wouldn't do better than Pirlo with the same players. I'd argue some true midtable coaches like Ivan Juric or de Zerbi would be good bets to do better than Pirlo and they'd probably cost the same.

Yeah, logically because teams change players in the summer... That's why mid-season switches are perfect as a comparison.

Or did you mean Pirlo not only was (or is) a complete rookie, he also had a huge disadvantage not having a pre-season?

I never said no coach would do better here. I'm an Allegri fan but no world class coach would want to burn his fingers on this bunch and we don't have the cash to spend big. Maybe someone like De Zerbi, yes. But then again we can also expect Pirlo to grow.

 

[DAiDEViL]

The reason we've sucked this year is... not having Emre Can. Say what?

Our best mid. €100m Pjanic brainlets wouldn't understand.

 

[Arcticdaly]

Instead of giving some -pardon me- quite useless examples of teams that spend millions before or after their coaching switches, actually use the statistics. There is a shitoad of literature proving it doesn't make a difference with the same players...

For instance this one: over a period of 10 years in Spanish football:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592111/

Summary: short shock effect, long term effect non-existent.


Said no one . He's being mentioned since he's a decent utility player. Seeing as the other side uses Kulu, he crossed my mind...

Why wouldnt i mention Kulu ? the guy is very talented kid that was signed coming off great season and had very good start to he's Juve career but for what ever reason pirlo dropped him and decided to change he's position every single time he played or was subbed in... he has been terrible managed.

 

[Robee]

Why wouldnt i mention Kulu ? the guy is very talented kid that was signed coming off great season and had very good start to he's Juve career but for what ever reason pirlo dropped him and decided to change he's position every single time he played or was subbed in... he has been terrible managed.

He's not terribly managed, he's playing out of position because his position simply doesn't exist in the squad and he shouldn't have been bought if you don't play like that. We have no one on the left but on the right side we have Cuads, Chiesa and Kulu as wide men. It's a freaking disaster of a roster.

I see what he could become but he's still far from doing that and many have gone down before him. Back in the day Tuz was on fire and Conte left because we missed out on I-fucking-turbe. I mean... young guys are often a bit of a gamble. But I'm willing to give him time.

 

[JuveE46]

Can you show me some statistical facts that state managers don’t make a difference? Just to make this interesting here are a few to prove they do:

Bayern: Kovac to Flick
Juve: Del Neri to Conte
Milan: Gattuso to Pioli
Man United: Sir Alex to everyone else
Liverpool: Rodgers to Klopp
Chelsea: Ranieri to Mourinho

The list is absolutely endless. I’m guessing I’ve misunderstood your post because you surely can’t think managers don’t make a difference

Fnishing 7th was del neris mental games in serie A, part of the tactic to enable Conte to win his FIRST season UNDEFEATED. Conte didn't do nothing he had simone pepe the ruler of all midfields and kelso tearing up that left flank. Don't forget the cussing ability of vicinic. Conte was a muppet.... standup night at tuz

 

[Strickland]

Yeah, logically because teams change players in the summer...

Well the coach can't do much mid season, most of the times it's unreasonable to change them mid season, we agree on that..

However that doesn't prove anything in regards to the importance of coaches, if you're fixated on players not changing, look at the NT of Italy - talent pool is the same and the quality of players doesn't change much. As long as they had Conte, a winning coach with a good CV and a high salary (4.5m/year), they were a force, as soon as Ventura, a much lower profile coach (earned 0.8m/year) came in, the team fell apart. Then Mancini, another rather high profile coach (earns 2m/year) came in and things are looking good again.

 

[Robee]

Well the coach can't do much mid season, most of the times it's unreasonable to change them mid season, we agree on that..

However that doesn't prove anything in regards to the importance of coaches, if you're fixated on players not changing, look at the NT of Italy - talent pool is the same and the quality of players doesn't change much. As long as they had Conte, a winning coach with a good CV and a high salary (4.5m/year), they were a force, as soon as Ventura, a much lower profile coach (earned 0.8m/year) came in, the team fell apart. Then Mancini, another rather high profile coach (earns 2m/year) came in and things are looking good again.

I do think good coaches can do much in half a season. Allegri for example was great from the very start. Keep the good stuff, don't try to change it all at once.

Again; Conte - Ventura is one example and not a statistical analysis like the one I gave you. Btw; NT coaches can do much less than an actual daytime coach over the course of a few months.

 

[Strickland]

I do think good coaches can do much in half a season. Allegri for example was great from the very start. Keep the good stuff, don't try to change it all at once. You're just spinning this.

Again; Conte - Ventura is one example and not a statistical analysis like the one I gave you. Btw; NT coaches can do much less than an actual daytime coach over the course of a few months.

Allegri had pre-season, coaches who come in mid-season do not have it. That's why many coaches don't accept jobs middle of the year because it's very risky, you're coming in a bad situation expected to work miracles with very little time to do that, of course it doesn't work often.

My point is a statistical analysis looking at only midseason coach changes cannot be extrapolated to anything more than what it is, I don't doubt the quality of paper, but you're making the wrong conclusion there.

But there are good coaches, great coaches and bad coaches and contrary to you I believe coach is the one position which impacts the results of the team most. If money is the issue, I'd rather not have Ronaldo or not have Bonucci and have a WC coach like Allegri instead of Pirlo.

 

[Robee]

Allegri had pre-season, coaches who come in mid-season do not have it. That's why many coaches don't accept jobs middle of the year because it's very risky, you're coming in a bad situation expected to work miracles with very little time to do that, of course it doesn't work often.

My point is a statistical analysis looking at only midseason coach changes cannot be extrapolated to anything more than what it is, I don't doubt the quality of paper, but you're making the wrong conclusion there.

But there are good coaches, great coaches and bad coaches and contrary to you I believe coach is the one position which impacts the results of the team most. If money is the issue, I'd rather not have Ronaldo or not have Bonucci and have a WC coach like Allegri instead of Pirlo.

Yeah, pre-season lasts 2 months. A half of a season is double that. You're spinning it.

It is literally the only way to compare coaches with the same squads. You can't compare coach X with team X to coach Y with team X+1. It's bullshit.

It's not a believe, it's a simple fact players make the difference. You can have whoever you want as a coach, if your players do dumb shit like backpasses that are too short or 30m lateral passes around the box, you might as well give up. It's as simple as that.
Why do you think Pep and Mourinho always spend shitloads of money then? Or how do explain Leicester winning EPL with Ranieri if a coach is the most important thing or Luis Enrique winning the Champions League (including the final against Allegri)?

What I do follow is good coaches not wanting to take too many risks, which is exactly what the Juve job is without quality injections at this point.

 

[il brutto]

Yeah, pre-season lasts 2 months. A half of a season is double that. You're spinning it.

It is literally the only way to compare coaches with the same squads. You can't compare coach X with team X to coach Y with team X+1. It's bullshit.

It's not a believe, it's a simple fact players make the difference. You can have whoever you want as a coach, if your players do dumb shit like backpasses that are too short or 30m lateral passes around the box, you might as well give up. It's as simple as that.
Why do you think Pep and Mourinho always spend shitloads of money then? Or how do explain Leicester winning EPL with Ranieri if a coach is the most important thing or Luis Enrique winning the Champions League (including the final against Allegri)?

What I do follow is good coaches not wanting to take too many risks, which is exactly what the Juve job is without quality injections at this point.

Why do yo think clubs are willing to pay 10m+ for a good coach? Of course you need good players to succeed but that doesn't mean coaches can't make a difference. You're making weird conclusions.

 

[Robee]

Why do yo think clubs are willing to pay 10m+ for a good coach? Of course you need good players to succeed but that doesn't mean coaches can't make a difference. You're making weird conclusions.

I never said (or meant to say) a coach doesn't make a difference. Of course they do... I do say players make more difference, and much more.

That's why Cristiano is worth -like what- 78 million and the most expensive coach makes how much? Is it even half of it? And he didn't win the CL once after leaving Messi.

 

[Strickland]

Yeah, pre-season lasts 2 months. A half of a season is double that.

It is literally the only way to compare coaches with the same squads. You can't compare coach X with team X to coach Y with team X+1. It's bullshit.

Even if you feel it's the only way, it's still not a good enough, imo it can only be used to draw conclusions about mid-season changes as that is a very specific scenario. I'd be more interested in a question like "is it worth it to invest in a high profile coach instead of hiring a rookie for 1.5m" and I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.

 

[il brutto]

I never said (or meant to say) a coach doesn't make a difference. But players do more, much more. That's why Cristiano is worth -like what- 78 million and the most expensive coach makes -what- only half or something?

So replacing Pirlo with a top coach would make us better?

 

[Robee]

So replacing Pirlo with a top coach would make us better?

Of course but not as much as using the 10 mil for some fucking good players.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if you feel it's the only way, it's still not a good enough, imo it can only be used to draw conclusions about mid-season changes as that is a very specific scenario. I'd be more interested in a question like "is it worth it to invest in a high profile coach instead of hiring a rookie for 1.5m" and I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.

That's a terrible question and the whole point. Cause without the high profile coach, you have freedom to spend in another, more useful way.

It's not a very specific scenario btw. You spin it that way.

 

[il brutto]

Of course but not as much as using the 10 mil for some fucking good players.

Teams that have top coaches disagree.

 

[Robee]

Teams that have top coaches disagree.

They don't because they buy good players first.

Zidane wasn't a novice like Pirlo but still a beginner. He won a 3-peat of Champions Leagues...

 

[Strickland]

That's a terrible question and the whole point. Cause without the high profile coach, you have freedom to spend in another, more useful way.

It's not a very specific scenario btw. You spin it that way.

I'd say paying 7m to Allegri this season would've been way more useful than paying that to Rabiot, Ramsey or Bonucci, but to each his own.

 

[il brutto]

They don't because they buy good players first.

The point is that no club with an actual top coach would think to themselves "hey, let's fire this coach so we can spend a few million more on the players". As I said earlier, of course you need top players but you also need a good coach. I'm sure Liverpool and City for example are quite happy to have their expensive coaches.