- Brian Symons
- Nov 20, 2020
Author: Fran Attié
What is the difference between coaching and managing a soccer team? On one side, there are those whose more intuitive approach to the game renders their style more focused on leadership, squad morale, and allowing freedom and stardom to shine on the pitch. These are managers, the epitome of whom, in the contemporary game, is Zinedine Zidane, whose claim to success in Madrid lies in his leading, by example or CV, a group of stars who had refused rigid tactical tenets in the past. On the other side, are those whose tactical acumen, structures of play, and theoretic reading of the game formulate their understanding of soccer and criteria for running a team. These are your coaches. Maurizio Sarri and Marcelo Bielsa are the prime examples today within this approach to management.
That is not to say managers aren’t adept at coaching, and coaches at managing, but in simpler terms, we will approach the difference as a matter of morale-based and schematic-based leading. Even if the truth lies in the intangibles, as it always does.
I thought this an interesting discussion, because I believe too many teams in the world avoid appointing coaches in favor of managers, bigger personalities, or hybrid leaders like Pep Guardiola and Jürgen Klopp. When in fact, to seek coaches in today’s game, I argue, is the sensitive, if not the smartest course of action, because the upper-management of clubs has become intricately specialized and coaches are needed now more than ever.
Back in the day, by which I mean 10-15 years ago, the manager of a team sat at the top of the chain for his club. Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United was king, the scouting department reported to him, the youth coaches the same, the director of football, etc. Nowadays, the person sitting at the top of the pyramid in Manchester is the club’s CEO, Ed Woodward, who, as a good executive, divides up tasks. This means that a manager’s traditional job has effectively been outsourced, while certain responsibilities, coaching namely, highlighted.
Don’t mistake me, however, for a disenchanted conservative, this is the way things are now, good or bad soccer has evolved, and hoping for a return to the old is a pointless exercise. What’s become clear then, is that good coaching is more fundamental to the fabric of a soccer team in today’s game.
So let us stick with Manchester United for a minute here. Ole Gunnar Solksjaer is, by all intents and purposes, a manager, a morale-based leader. His stay at United has been, barring the first 3 months of work, a real roller coaster ride. There are certainly many reasons for that, bad recruiting and a stingy board don’t come close to being Solksjaer’s problem; I would argue, however, that at the heart of it all, lies a mediocre manager, or really, an incapable coach.
The Norwegian has spoken, since his arrival, of mirroring Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool, both in developmental progression and style of play. But the execution so far has been timid. Under Solksjaer, United have had no consistent starting 11, no consistent game plan, and no consistent formation—just this season, they have played with 3 defenders, a diamond in midfield, 2 strikers, a false 9, and a disastrous 4-2-2-2 against Istanbul Basaksehir and Arsenal. Now, to be fair, Solksjaer doesn’t have enough players to conform just to one system, the squad is wildly unbalanced, and that is more Woodward’s fault than the manager’s. Nonetheless, that is where a good coach would come in. Players aren’t just one thing for their whole careers, they can evolve, change positions and style; the job of a coach is also to train and nurture a player into his best position or the best position available in the team—Ole hasn’t shown this to be his forte.
Overall, the constants for Solksjaer have been his reliance on star talent, which tends to be a commonality among managers, and his (mostly) effective coaxing of confidence into the squad. But, through 8 matches, Man United are 14th in the Premier League this season, having suffered embarrassing defeats at the hands of Arsenal and Spurs most significantly, a 6-1 loss for the history books. It doesn’t seem likely that United will hold on to him for another year.
A name that was floated last year for the Manchester job was Marco Rose’s. Then, he was still the manager of Red Bull Salzburg, and United, being a brand first and foremost, probably didn’t feel like taking the “risk” of appointing an unmarketable young coach. One man’s trash… Borussia Mönchengladbach had no qualms about hiring him, and after an inspired campaign last season, and a series of promising Champions League performances, it’s not hard to see why.
Rose is, unmistakably a coach. He was Jürgen Klopp’s assistant at Mainz and his preferred style of play is a decurrence of Klopp’s gegenpressing, though much more tightly wound. He emphasizes compact play through the center of the pitch via mobile and deft-passing attackers, who are trained in the ways of the press. For a mid-table side like Gladbach, the best way to climb up the league is in fostering a culture and a style of play. This is what a talented coach can create in a team—it is exactly what Rose brings to the table and he could have brought at United.
Now, German managers in general have been quick to adapt to this new phase of soccer. From Klopp to Rose, Julian Nagelsman to Thomas Tüchel, and even Lucien Favre (granted he is Swiss) to Jogi Löw, Germany has put herself on the forefront of soccer, winning in recent years Champions Leagues, World Cups and influencing a host of teams into hiring analytics-savvy, tactically proactive coaches.
In this new scene, England lags behind, with stubbornness probably at the heart of the matter. Although front offices in the Premier League have, in the past 5 years or so, begun modernizing, breaking apart managerial responsibilities and creating more efficient operations, the actual hiring process of new managers has been counterintuitive—the standard bearers are still the older generations, who are mostly unbothered by tactics and coaching, and approach the game through aphorisms of the past. Solksjaer is an example of that, so is Frank Lampard at Chelsea, Carlo Ancelotti at Everton, Steve Bruce at Newcastle, etc. There are exceptions of course, and slowly English football is adapting, but overall, pride for a glorious past still echoes most acutely in the UK.
Similarly positioned sits the Brazilian league. Resistant to change, Brazilian teams got stuck in time and been relegated to talent-farming outfits—perhaps glory reflects here too, from the country who invented the sport to the ones who made it into the beautiful game.
In the Série A, old managers are recycled amongst the better teams, journalists and fans sit fixated on maxims of the past, and even the filming of matches, the way the action is shot, is antiquated. Few are the teams that have embraced the present, and even then, they fumble about it in their own ways. Yet, in São Paulo there seems to be change a’brewing.
When Fernando Diniz was hired as São Paulo FC’s manager in 2019, not much faith was put in his stead. A little over a year later, it would be fair to call his work adequate, especially in light of the shambolic inconsistency of results SPFC have undergone the last few years. However, in the last month or so, the team has really hit their stride, and look formidable and mature, despite their young age (the squad’s median age is 25,7 years). São Paulo currently sit 3rd in the national league, 2 points behind the leaders but with two games in hand, and, after winning the first leg, are leading Flamengo in the quarter finals of the Copa do Brasil, a cup the team has never won. But most importantly, São Paulo seem to have found successful tactics that suit and elevate the form of the players, and it is the first time in a long time the club have experienced this kind of consistency in results and style of play, while still promising much more.
This cosmic change, I place in the hands of the coach, who is very much a coach. Diniz’s style of play, labeled “Dinizismo” is often compared to Guardiola’s tiki-taka, through good or bad, though the coach himself has pointed at Atleti’s Diego Simeone as the bigger influence. I would argue, however, that Diniz’s own comparison maybe serves him better when thinking about managing style, but not when discussing his approach to management. Let me explain: Diniz is quickly becoming famous (and adored) with the SPFC faithful for his energetic antics on the sideline, he drives hard for his players, but also at them; like “El Cholo,” Diniz is quick at snapping, berating and interrogating his players, the opposition’s and officials alike. That is his managing style. Approach to management, however, tells a different story, a Guardiola-laden story. The tenets of “Dinizismo” are manifested through passing, slow building from the back with skilled goalkeepers and capable defenders, an emphasis on triangulation and the rhombus, and a penchant for smaller, more skilled players, instead of their burly, more physical counterparts.
Diniz has talked about how it takes around a year for a coach to implement his philosophy, and from the looks of it, he is about right, as only now São Paulo has kicked into gear through his coaching. And though there’s still ways to go, the team often look elegant, coordinated and intelligent in possession; at their best, individual talent apart, very much like a Guardiola team.
São Paulo FC is one of the big clubs of Brazilian football, historically speaking, and yet, this is the 8th year of a trophy drought. In many unfortunate ways, SPFC’s situation is largely comparable to Manchester United’s, the notable difference though, lies in the managerial appointment—whereas in Brazil there is cause for hope, in Manchester there is but the certain downfall.
I say all this, however, not to discourage the hiring of managers altogether. There is undoubtedly still room for more traditional managing styles in soccer, it’s just become, woefully, much harder for them to succeed at their jobs. Because managers now have comparatively less control over the team’s footballing operations than they used to have, they stand, as far as squad building is concerned, for example, at the mercy of others. In the past, managers could rely on the promise of providing autonomy to their players, but as they lack it themselves nowadays, all of a sudden they must grip tightly at the reins, and risk controlling that which they are not proficient at.
Nevertheless, there are success stories; Stefano Pioli at AC Milan, is one of those. Last season, Pioli was brought in as a stop-gap manager, who would balance the squad just enough for the forthcoming arrival of Ralf Ragnick (another one of those German coaches…). He was supposed to lift the team’s spirits, energize the players and allow them some freedom. Pioli impressed, however, quite a bit as he guided Milan to a 10 game unbeaten run besting eventual champions Juventus along the way, and ended up getting the nod himself. If this reminds you of Solksjaer’s appointment at Manchester United, it’s because it should.
This season, among new arrivals and a brilliant return to form from Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Milan sit top of the Italian league. The team play a confident brand of football, mostly reliant on the strengths of its leaders, Ibrahimovic’s control in the pivot on long balls, and his eye for goal, Ismaël Bennacer’s deep-playmaking ability, and Theo Hernández’s pace and goalscoring instinct on the wing. Pioli didn’t reinvent the wheel, nor did he seek to, and it certainly helps to have a world-class defender in Alessio Romagnoli, and a generational keeper in Gianluigi Donnaruma at his disposal, but he has flourished where so many recent managers have failed; he is living proof that under the right conditions, one doesn’t need a Real Madrid level squad to succeed. Though the right conditions, one really does need.
Finally, I did say at the beginning that truth lies in the intangibles, and to argue that there are only two ways of running a soccer club is a reductive business. Through all the changes in soccer, there are always the unicorns, the originals, the strong personalities that make a dent in the sport from the get-go of their careers. These are, naturally, hybrid manager/coaches, and we know them as the Pep Guardiola’s of the world, the Johan Cruyff’s, the Telê Santana’s, or the José Mourinho’s.
Mourinho comes into this article as a special case, he is the only manager in this list with a philosophy of his own, all others are either barren in said department or borrowers. His idea of soccer follows one fundamental tenet, that the team that has the ball risks losing it, and therefore risks conceding. As counterintuitive as that may sound, his reasoning is quite sound (forgive the pun): the ball is the changing variable in a match, without possession, a tactically resolute team is most compact, and most free to exploit the opponent’s faults. Mourinho’s philosophy affects his whole approach to management; he coaches his teams through these ideals, and sets them up, schematically, accordingly. And because of his CV, he has more leeway to continue exerting more traditional aspects of managing, as for example having strong influence over the decision-making process surrounding transfers, or overseeing the handling of youth academies at whatever club he is. So far, Spurs are flourishing under his watch, sitting second in the league and, barring unforeseen troubles, like the team to beat this year for the PL title.
On the coaching side, Mourinho is highly pragmatic, and adjusts squad selections and formations on the fly; an understanding of squad fits and needs has always been an imperative for the Portuguese: at Real Madrid he converted defensive midfielder Michael Essien into a right-back; at Manchester United it was Antonio Valencia playing right-back (yes, Van Gaal did it first, but Valencia was the best RB in the league under José) and Ander Herrera playing free-safety on defense in order to track the movement of Eden Hazard, a tactic that worked to tremendous effect and has now become the blueprint for marking the Belgium winger. This year at Spurs, the tactical adjustments have come mostly in playing three more conservative midfielders at the same time, usually with a number 8 in Tanguy Ndombele occupying the number 10 spot, which has served to unlock Harry Kane, traditionally a number 9, to play as a 10, dropping further into midfield and setting up his teammates with incisive assists. José has made Spurs a more balanced team, one that shield’s its defense, is able to press higher up the pitch on the opposition’s mistake, and is particularly dynamic on the frontline.
The thing is though, managers like Mourinho, or Guardiola for that matter, don’t appear too often in a generation, and even then, their talents are basically reserved for the highest echelon of clubs. That Spurs landed Mourinho is still baffling when you really think about it. I mean, could you imagine Sir Alex coaching a team like Villareal? Or Cruyff managing Atalanta?
My point then is, the old ways of soccer, have only ever really worked at the highest levels, and have always been reserved to the star managers. A preservation of the past, both in spirit and practice, serves solely in support of the Goliaths. Waiting out for the unicorn managers or for the perfect conditions in which a manager can succeed is a folly’s way of running a team.
Overall, specialization in the managing structures serves to make clubs more competitive and can help drive a certain sense of equity into the sport. Top to bottom, teams must be ready to embrace the present wave of soccer. It is, after all, good business. So too then, should they view the appointment of coaches.
SPORTS ARE OUR UNIVERSE
