Who are some of the worst managers ever?

Maradona...

 

For Wilmots: let's see if the once fancied and talked up Roberto Martinez will do better. I doubt it. He still has to beat one team of note, something that Wilmots accomplished (in friendlies) with players who were less advanced in their careers. No, he is not good, but I doubt whether he's among the worst. I doubt whether Martinez will do better.

For Van Basten: for quite a part this depends on how the level of his material is assessed. If his players barely (or not) make the 'best 23' of a certain year, then the standards can't be too harsh.

In qualifiers he achieved 81% of the possible points, compared to 83% for the full 2000 to 2013 period. The largest defeats he suffered are two 1-3 losses, courtesy of an own goal by his player and at the other 1-3 loss two goals in extra time (by supercharged Russia). The other 4 losses were all by one goal (a 2-1 defeat and three 1-0 defeats). Furthermore, at the big tournaments he accomplished a draw against Argentina, a win against dark horse Ivory Coast and wins against France and Italy (and does the UEFA like it to lose several hundredth millions? no they don't, enter the Nations League).

If you manage 52 games with a country of 16 million and only lose 6 games (only narrowly) then you can't be one of the worst managers ever.

He had also a (small but meaningful) role in the careers of Ibrahimovic and Luis Suarez. At least he had the coaching skill to improve players a bit. Ask for yourself if Zidane is still Zidane if he would coach (and start his career) at a smaller team, that's an unknown.

MvB is only seen as a failure because he was by a majority judged as Europe's best ever striker (or at least quite possibly so), and because people implicitly compare him to Cruijff. But by those standards almost everyone is a failure.

Let me conclude with his own words in 1996, later repeated: "I found out that out of ten so-called top coaches only one is really able to improve the team. Six out of ten do no harm and three out of ten even manage to make the team worse."

 

Some of the mentions in these links make more sense imho

http://www.goal.com/en/news/top-10-worst-managers-of-all-time/t68zls1yhv151sstr845keh12

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/may/04/sportfeatures.footballmanagers

https://www.thesportster.com/soccer/top-15-worst-soccer-managers-of-all-time/

 

Moyes. What the hell was Ferguson thinking...

 

Moyes did better job than Van Gaal with less trust and patience from the board. I have never understood why he didn't get as much hate as Moyes.

 

OK, that makes sense. I can sympathize with the view that both Wilmots and Martinez belong to the bottom 50%. Difficult to really say, but makes sense.

Understand here however that Belgium has it naturally difficult to attract the best staff, from nutritionists to analysts.

My argument is not that he "achieved anything special" per se, but just that he doesn't belong among the 'poor managers' bracket.

There have been plenty champions or finalists though who don't play impressive, except for one or two games, but have the 'luck' to meet the stronger and grinding teams (costing injuries, yellows, fatigue) later in the tournament. Most finalists only need to beat one or two of the traditional elite sides. The Netherlands is usually not seeded (even if with a high ranking) and therefore they meet the stronger sides, including pre-tournament favorites, early. Against those stronger sides he wasn't humiliated.

The Russia game is a sensitive point and one can make the case he didn't do well. From the tactics to man managing the Boularhouz tragedy. On the other hand, it is a recorded fact that the Russians ran 2.0 kilometers more per player in the game, and in that scenario even the Guardiolas of this world would have a tough task. There is only so much a manager can do when the opponent runs that much more per player. Besides, in potential Russia is always dangerous. In football they aren't a giant, but in general sports organization and/or sports politics they are a behemoth (tip: the acclaimed documentary 'Icarus' for general insight on their organizational capabilities and international wheeling and dealing).

Why wasn't he "one of the worst" managers - in addition to what was stated in previous post, for this in my view.

• In qualifiers he achieved 81% of the possible points in this period. Italy 79%, Spain 76%, Portugal 73%, France 70%, England 72%. Germany did not need to qualify for 2006. It is higher than the other UEFA teams, higher than Czech Republic, higher than Croatia.
• Against the traditional elite teams he played 8 games and lost 1 match (against Italy in 2005, 1-3 defeat with an own goal). He was never humiliated with 4-0 or 5-0 (and even if that had happened once it wouldn't have been that bad; it happened to many of the super great managers).
• Over the full 2000s decade the Netherlands is 3rd in the (often accurate) Elo ratings. His stint contributed to that assessment.
• Seedorf, Van Bommel and RvN were already lukewarm stories for the national team before MvB entered the job.

Yes I agree with "anything special" (I'd say the same for some of the successful managers though). That is however something different than "one of the worst".

"Considering the players" makes me wonder: by which standards exactly? What are we thinking of? During his period as national team manager only two Dutch players made the ESM team of the year. Only four players made the Ballon d'Or list (and in 2005 and 2006 no Dutchman made the list). Those things are certainly not perfect, but by claiming "lot of good players" I wonder how that is comparatively assessed.

Because in part it defines the upper limits what is possible, over a longer period of time and when you're an established danger, a money burner. You also see it now with the Nations League; it is intentionally designed to keep Iceland or Portugal at bay (in the prospectus marketed to 'partners' as "Champions League for nations"). You saw it in the 1970s when for a fact the UEFA downgraded the #2 ranked Dutch league back to literally Greece, Iceland and Denmark level for no reason (financially and in terms of entry spots, seeding, and other assistance).

His point was (and is) that the really good managers are few and far between. I tend to agree with him. He himself was a caretaker, not a difference maker, when zooming out the perspective.

 

I don’t have the ability or the energy to provide a post as insightful or as informative as the ones above. But someone else who seemed to lack ability and energy in a post was Alan Ball who was a World Cup winner with England, clearly part of an old boys network and a truly dreadful coach.

 

Has anybody said Maradona yet? Bad manager.