November 5, 2007

written by Andrii Sigthorsson

Continuing FM-Britain’s policies of encouraging international membership and new writing talent, we are happy to release the following article from an Indonesian member. This article examines two different types of managers and their specific styles of managing before examining the writer’s own ‘weakness’ at FM. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we did.

In my opinion, there are only two types of manager. The first type stick to one variant of tactic and formation (tactician) and the second type tries to build tactics and formations based on the quality and resources of players at his disposal (manager).

The first type, the tactician, is a common thing to see in the real-world of football, and undoubtedly in FM. The tactician plays with the same formation and has an almost similar approach for every match in each club. Examples are Capello, Rafa Benitez or Arsene Wenger. The consequences of this kind of managing? They have to bring a lot of new players every time they move into new club (unless the new club was already playing in a similar way; unlikely, or why would he have been employed?) to make their favoured tactic work well on the pitch. These types of mangers often have “golden boys” or “golden nations”. Capello had Panucci and Emerson, Benitez his Spaniards, Wenger his Frenchmen. If one or two key players leave the club, this kind of manager immediately buys another similar type of player to fill the position left behind. This can cost him a lot in terms of money and performance, for established players cost, and talented but untested players need to be developed to fit the tactic and blend with the team.

But there are advantages. If a player gets injured, the tactician won’t get a headache. They will always have players to cover the problem and can maintain the consistency of the tactic with little fuss. Capello did this when he managed Juventus. He changed the tactic from 3-4-1-2 into 4-4-2, bought several fullbacks and his regulation holding midfielder in Emerson. At Madrid, he again bought Emerson and a new full-back in Cicinho, making sure he had the right calibre and type of player to fit his preferred tactic. This kind of manager won’t work well in a club with a very long and high tradition in playing style like Barca or Persib Bandung…hehehe. Look at Capello and Real. Successful but sacked, simply because his tactic didn’t fit the Madrid mould. They’ll succeed in clubs that allows them to make huge changes rather than at ones with a long tradition in stylish football.

The second type is the manager, named as such because they really do manage. They don’t focus on specific tactics; rather their success is based on the resources at hand. Usually they have a preferred formation, but if club conditions aren’t in favor they won’t hesitate to change everything needed to make things better. Everything needed? Yes, but in the smart (and cheaper) way. Instead of immediately buying all manner of players to fit to their preferred tactic, these managers will adapt his tactical approach and formation based on the strengths and weaknesses of his team. They will spot who are the best players, how the players used to play before, how to get the best out of the players, and build the team tactic based on those considerations.

The most obvious living evidence of this kind of manager is Sir Alex Ferguson (although Lippi is in the same mould). I see your incredulity, but read on! When Ferguson believed his best player to be Beckham, he only needed a striker that could match Beckham’s playing style. He bought van Nistelrooij and played ‘cross ball often’. Today, his best players are Rooney and Ronaldo, so he plays short, quick passes, swap positions and through balls.

The managers also rarely “cry” when one or two key players go missing through suspension and injury. They will simply review their resources, make changes and maybe buy one or two players (usually cheap ones) to smooth the tactical changes. Managers seem to only buy expensive players when they genuinely admire them, not because of tactical requirements. The most noticeable thing with this type is that they always have one or two “core player” that form the basis of the system at that time. These players are a necessity to the manager’s preferred system, as it has been built round their qualities. Thus, they will always play the vital games.

The disadvantage is, surely, in the dependency to such core players, so when they are unable to play, the manager has to think about some new approach to the game, either changing the style of play or formation. Think of Manchester Utd’s Champions League Final, with no Scholes or Keane. Ferguson shifted tactics, having two left-wingers in a 4-4-2, with Giggs on the right and Beckham in the centre. It didn’t work, so he switched to the 4-3-3 that won them the match. Equally, the present day side seems toothless without Ronaldo. But this type of situation can be avoided if the team has players with similar style that can temporarily cover the absence of the star. Thus, the manager tries to develop players in the same mould as his established players, using tutoring methods. Think Ronaldo teaching Anderson and Nani what it is like to be a Manchester United footballer, although on a football pitch. However, if the transition isn’t seamless the manager will tinker with formations and styles before finding a system that best suits his new crop of players.

Related to FM, I realized recently why I always spent so much money in the budget to gain success or why I cannot succeed at some clubs whilst being able to succeed at others. It’s because I am too dependant on my tactic. No matter if I manage Inter, Napoli, Athletico Madrid, Zaragoza, Valencia, Newcastle, Triestina or Pistoiese I would always bring the same tactic to the club. When the players at my disposal could not meet my demands, bad things would happen, including my losing my job. Now I have decided to be a manager above and beyond a tactician. I try to decipher my current team strengths and weaknesses, to deeper understand the structure of the squad. Once I have done that, I can then decide what kind of approach to be made to drive the team into long and lasting success. It does seem to be working. I now feel I have finally evolved from a tactician to somebody who can actually manage.