What Makes A Successful Coach (Vol II)

(This is the 2nd part in a series of 3 articles)

But I need to stay on message. Allegri did the Italian double in his first season as Juve coach, going one better than he did in his debut season as Milan coach. On the other hand, in his first season, Lucho Enrique won the treble, like Guardiola before him, both achieving this amazing feat as coaches of Barcelona. Jose Mourinho did the treble in his spell at Inter Milan, having previously done the double in Porto and in his first spell at Chelsea. With his work so far at Bayern, Guardiola seems out to disprove any remaining critics to his abilities as a premier coach alongside the very best the modern game has ever seen. If Enrique and Allegri continue this winning streak with their current sides, which seems entirely plausible with their current roster of players and the peculiarities of the leagues they play in, they will soon reach the same god-like status of Pep and Jose. And we will soon start to talk about them in the same breadth and take it for granted that they are spectacular talents and coaching greats.

But with all these accolades pouring in like a Himalayan avalanche it does make you wonder; how would any of these players have fared if rather than coach a top tier team, they had had to start from a lower ranked league side? Would they have attained the same level of success, or would they have done enough to be noticed by a bigger team and then move into the “big leagues”? This is the central thesis of my query. I wonder if the outlandish applause we give to these coaches (and you can substitute that for whatever term you like, you might just be surprised at the parallels) isn’t just an expressive outlet of our need to hero worship; our innate desire to make stars of even underserving people so that we can give our mundane lives some meaning. Stretching the parallels a bit, is Lewis Hamilton or Sebastian Vettel the great driver either is touted as, or did they just get to have the good fortune of driving behind the fastest set of wheels on the track?

There was once a time when the average coach would start out with a smaller team and would keep moving up the ranks as it were, either as his team succeeded and got better positions on the league table or as other higher placed teams saw the value in his style, approach and results and decided to take a chance on him. Most of the coaches who led the teams many of us grew up watching in the 70s, 80s and 90s were pre-dominantly of this mould. In fairness, there was more balance to the game then than there is now as clubs were on more of an even footing in terms of the talent pool available to them and the financial resources they had to call upon.

The game has since changed fundamentally. Many of Europe’s leading clubs started as neighbourhood/communal teams and so enjoyed support from their local community. As the game became more global, and with the advent of TV, these clubs began to appeal to a wider global fan base beyond their backyards. Some teams took advantage of globalisation and capitalised on the opportunities that lay farther afield. Clubs like Real Madrid and Manchester United grasped early on that their long term fortunes lay beyond their own shores and today they are better positioned financially for it than most others. On the other hand, globalisation is a two way street and while the first wave of development came from clubs expanding their brand abroad, the next wave began in 2003 when Ken Bates sold off Chelsea FC to Russian Oligarch, Roman Abramovich.

Abramovich’s intervention wasn’t the first time a wealthy individual would invest in or buy into a club; Silvio Berlusconi had taken over AC Milan and Bernard Tapie was once lord and master of Olympic Marseille. The difference this time was the sheer amount of money involved and the fact that even established teams and owners couldn’t compete with the “crazy money” now being introduced into the game. Soon Manchester City would be bought by Emiratis and the Qataris would take over Paris Saint Germain. As results would show over the course of a few years, it had now become possible to “buy” a trophy and “build” your dream team, just by having enough cash. The restraints that rival clubs faced as they tried to run viable clubs and make sure their books balanced at the day’s end were of no consequence to these noveau riche teams.

So what does any of this have to do with our central question? Everything. With the introduction of lavish amounts of money into the game, the new owners seemingly have only one demand; and that is to win and win right away. It appears that the era of long term coaches or patience with a coach’s style and philosophy is long gone as the win at all costs mentality seems to pervade every facet of the modern game. These days, coaches are hired to win, and if they fail to do so, they can count on being fired in the morning. And when the coach is sacked, the club goes out on the hunt for a coach with a “winning” mentality. The patience to get a promising coach and allow him grow into the role is something we rarely see anymore. Even coaches who have proven themselves time and again find themselves on the receiving end of this new-fangled impatience as owners and fans now addicted to instant success, or envious of another team’s overnight champion status start to demand more from their faithful coach. One can only begin to wonder what kept Arsene Wenger going for 9 years as he daily had to keep the Arsenal faithful satisfied that his experiment was on track and they would eventually return to the heady heights he had previously taken them to.

So how can you gauge a truly successful coach? Is it the one who has the best tactical nous and can come up with a problem for every opposing team’s solutions? Is it the one who knows how to get the most out of his players and can make the most of his meagre resources? Is it the one whose team keeps on winning notwithstanding the style of football on display? Or is it the one whose team plays an attractive, offensive all out football game and who score goals like they’re going out of fashion?

Personally I couldn’t argue with the winning run that both Guardiola and Mourinho have enjoyed since they forced themselves into our collective consciousness, what I do question though is whether they would have had the same measure of success if they had been coaching a West Bromwich Albion, a Genoa, a Real Betis or an Eintracht Frankfurt. I question whether each one of these modern day coaching geniuses would have been able to rise to the top if they’d had to manage the task of climbing the coaching ladder, rather than having the reins of an already well established and successful club handed to them (undeservedly) on a platter.

It may seem harsh and unfair, but I’d wager that there are some teams in certain leagues that even a monkey could lead to Championship victory (yes, Italy, Spain, Germany I’m looking at you). This may not hold true for all leagues, but by the same token, even if the team doesn’t win its league, it will at least compete creditably. If that premise holds true, then you wonder why more clubs don’t take chances on bolder coaches who are making a name for themselves with smaller less established teams. I mean let’s be honest; how badly can an average coach perform if he has the likes of Arjen Robben, Franck Ribery, Tomas Muller, and Philip Lahm, in his starting eleven? When Guardiola inherited the current Bayern Munich squad, they had just been crowned Champions of Europe and Germany and already had a resolute winning mentality. Allegri inherited a Juventus side who were three times League winners in Italy and Louis Enrique took over the squad that had at its core the team Frank Rijkaard initiated, Pep Guardiola established and Tito Vilanova polished. Truly how hard could it have been to get these teams to win a title again?

Despite my dislike for the English Premier League, it might actually prove to be a more difficult league to win than some of the others in Europe. The reason I say this is because a look at the competition shows that there are at least 3 or 4 teams that start out each season with a real possibility of winning the title, and as the campaign bears out, with points going one way or another, there is more often than not the possibility of a close race all the way down to the wire. In Germany apart from the two season blip that Bayern suffered in 2011, and 2012 it is fairly certain that they will win the league again next year. In recent times in Italy, as much as it pains me to write this, there’s only one Champion and that’s Juventus; the others, be they Roma or Napoli just don’t have enough in the tank to sustain a season long campaign for honours. For them it would appear that their sole aim is to qualify for the Champions League positions. And as for the two disappointing teams from Milan, they seem content for now to continue to implode season after season. Spain has only Real and Barcelona and impressive though it was, Atletico’s campaign two seasons ago was merely a case of them profiting from the slip of the two teams in front. Even their coach admits as much.

So if you’re appointed coach of Juventus tomorrow, how hard can it really be to secure the team its fifth successive title? If you don’t tinker too much and you basically allow the players to carry on as if the last chap were still there, they’d probably not notice his departure and would attain the same results for you. In fact, you could go to training sessions and matches with a mask bearing Max Allegri’s features and that stupid grin of his, and no one would be the wiser. Then when your team comes in victorious next May, would we then unmask you and declare you a revolutionary, brilliant coach? Is that what it takes? Is this now the guaranteed path to coaching success? Is this now the standard coaches are held to? Would that truly make you a great coach?

Jose Mourinho left Chelsea in 2007, barely 7 games into his fourth season in charge of the club. Roman Abramovich had been convinced by his Sporting Director, Frank Arnesen and others that it was his (Abramovich) money and footballing genius that had brought the trophies to Chelsea and not Mourinho’s guile and tactics. They basically said anyone would win with you in charge and with all the money you’ve invested. So Roman believed, and soon he and Mourinho were parting. Despite Mourinho’s departure that season, Chelsea would push Manchester United all the way in both the league and the Champions League, eventually falling short as runners up to United in both competitions. After Avram Grant’s departure in 2008, practically every single coach Chelsea hired would win a title, essentially using the spine of Mourinho’s team. The one exception being Andres Villas Boas (AVB) who only lasted half a season; incidentally his replacement, Roberto di Matteo, would secure Chelsea its first ever UEFA Champions League trophy. So it does seem after all despite Frank Arnesen’s unceremonious demise at Chelsea that he was right about one thing – once you have a winning team in place, anyone can “successfully” coach them.

Need more proof? Here’s another anecdote. For seven years between 2002 and 2008, Ligue 1 side, Olympique Lyonnais, held the league championship trophy with a vice-like grip. No one it seemed cold prise the league from the team. Players came and went, but significantly the team changed its head coach no less than four (yes 4) times, and each one of those coaches won something during that victorious streak.

(please stay tuned for my closing thoughts)