How would you explain the 0.85 correlation between player talent and results that was cited earlier. Do you deny it? It seems to me that this stat points to the fact that a coach has very little impact on results and I am intersted to know how you explain it. The only defense to this stat that I have seen is people bringing up individual examples, which lack any type of explanitory scope when faced with a much larger sample size.
Except for that a much larger sample size generally conforms to the mean, or the average. When we're talking about whether or not a "extraordinary coach", either extraordinarily poor or good, compatible or incompatible, has an impact on a side, or whether it is purely player quality which determines the outcome, the average doesn't help us because it crowds out the accomplishments of the few that have managed to either destroy a team or lift it high. As far as I am aware, what you are saying is a coach NEVER matters, negligible impact in almost every situation either way, and if it does have any impact at all, it is negative. What I am saying is, for the most part, aka in the average scenario, say, 90% of the time, a coach matters little, explaining the average median that you speak of, but there are certain coaches that either don't or do get the best out of their players due to their overall quality, or perhaps being uniquely qualified to attend to the situation around them or not, like Mourinho at Porto, or, conversely speaking, Doll at Dortmund. This theory I have I believe is able to explain both your stat and the admittedly anecdotal few outliers of a coach taking over a team and, without necessarily making upgrades of talent to their team, producing immediate and sustainable improvements in results.
Another theory is that when things are going well, like they did in Mourinho's case last season, it may have papered over the fundamental cracks in compatibility between Real and Mourinho. Mourinho's sides before that point have always been counter-attacking "underdog" sides like Chelski or Internazionale or Porto, and he had always reshaped the side to his liking, benching superstars like Shevchenko who didn't fit. In Real Madrid, though, Mourinho reshaped Real Madrid into more of a coil, absorbs pressure then springs out, benching Kaka, bringing in underrated players like Lass Diarra or Sami Khedira, buying Özil, etc. These were all very hard and fast changes, and, when things were going well, it worked. But when the chips were down, it collapsed, and these players that didn't really like Mourinho in the first place burst in flames. How else can you explain that the moment when this side has a poor run of form the lockerroom starts to explode after doing so well last season? Because the side never had faith in Mourinho in the first place. Maybe it is not that the concept of compatibility is a myth because it worked one season and then didn't the net, but that the compatibility was never there and the arrangement worked only as long as Real kept winning?
I am not saying a coach never matters, I started this post by saying ¨I have always been under the impression that, in general, coaches don't make that much of a difference at the proffessional Division 1 level.¨in general¨ being the operative word, so it seems that we agree with each other. However, I don´t really think Mourinho is anything special. I don´t know much of his time at Porto, but at Chelsea, Inter and Real Madrid, his teams had performed at they level they should based on their talent.
But that's a different team, different things are required of the coach, different skill sets, different qualities, etc. It is not like FIFA Ultimate Team where you stick the expensive coach in and it automatically has a positive effect. Just because one job works out and another doesn't, does that mean that the influence of the coach is negligible. It is like asking a neurosurgeon to do plumbing and then he doesn't do a good job so you say "he's not a good neurosurgeon, look at how horrible the plumbing is". Just because Mourinho took Porto, Inter, Chelski, to the top only to fail at Real doesn't mean he's not a good coach, it is that the Real job wasn't well-suited for his qualities and the way he runs a team.
Anyways, this argument can drag on for quite a long time, because it is difficult to establish the cause of the success or non-success of any one team.
It's not like asking a neurosurgeon to do plumbing. It's like asking a Neurosurgeon to do Neurosurgery on a different patient. They are not getting whole different job title or need a different skill set in order to do their job.
I interviewed Juan Manuel Lillo a few months ago (for those who don't know, he the definition of an average manager, great with some teams, awful with others, but he's credited by Pep Guardiola as his mentor). What he told me was, "in the end, the most important thing is the process, the way you work with your teams because results can or cannot come. You can do the same things with two teams and get completely opposite results". There are a plethora of factors that influence the results of a team, player quality being the most important one by far, but also luck, injuries, characters in the locker room. The coach has of course an influence which could be 15% (or 10%...). In general, that doesn't change the result of a match but in similar conditions can, of course be a deciders (as luck can be as well). In the long run a team with a better coach/manager will have better results, but it's by no means a certainty of results.
How did they overperform? look at that team, it had pretty awesome players in it, and a lot of them went on to bigger clubs after. I think you're just calling it an over performance because you don't expect Porto to do so well.
I didn't expect that squad to do so well, and they've had some squads as good as that one since then and they didn't preform like that again. This was their usual starting eleven in 2003/04: Vítor Baía; Paulo Ferreira, Ricardo Carvalho, Jorge Costa, Nuno Valente; Costinha, Pedro Mendes, Maniche, Deco; Benni McCarthy, Derlei Pedro Emanuel, Dmitri Alenichev, Maciel, Edgaras Jankauskas, Carlos Alberto, José Bosingwa and Sérgio Conceição were also used often. It was a good squad, but they did overperform.
Compare to the other squads during the CL, this was early 2000s, European football wasn't what it is today, there was a lot of players thrown into different teams, but no Super teams other than Real Madrid and maybe AC Milan.
1992–93 Marseille 1–0 Milan 1993–94 Milan 4–0 Barcelona 1994–95 Ajax 1–0 Milan 1995–96 Juventus 1–1*[F] Ajax 1996–97 Borussia Dortmund 3–1 Juventus 1997–98 Real Madrid 1–0 Juventus 1998–99 Manchester United 2–1 Bayern Munich 1999–00 Real Madrid 3–0 Valencia 2000–01 Bayern Munich 1–1*[G] Valencia 2001–02 Real Madrid 2–1 Bayer Leverkusen 2002–03 Milan 0–0*[H] Juventus 2003–04 Porto 3–0 Monaco 2004–05 Liverpool 3–3* Milan 2005–06 Barcelona 2–1 Arsenal 2006–07 Milan 2–1 Liverpool 2007–08 Manchester United 1–1*[J] Chelsea 2008–09 Barcelona 2–0 Manchester United 2009–10 Internazionale 2–0 Bayern Munich 2010–11 Barcelona 3–1 Manchester United 2011–12 Chelsea 1–1*[K] Bayern Munich
But are coaches worth a half point a game? How can that be measured? I have read that when one coach replaces another in a coach (in all sports) there is a 50/50 chance that the team will do better than the previous coach....... and of course, a 50/50 chance he will do worse.
See smaller clubs used to be a part of the CL finals constantly, that has not been the case since that Porto x Monaco final Until the economies of Europe kind of regain their balance, it won't go back to that.
unclear. my best guess at an answer: half the time, a new coach leads a team to a better record. half the time, a new coach leads a team to a worse record. like flipping a coin.
The thing that is highly unlikely is that the new coach will have exactly the same winning percentage (if this is what you mean by status quo) as the old coach. Even if both the old and new coaches are in charge for the exact number of games there are always different competitions to consider, strength of schedule, home vs away etc. will a team improve under a new manager? flip a coin. the odds are 50 percent yes. PS: where do you get the half point a game value for coaches? Thanks.
Ranking? And what makes you say it would be "highly unlikely"? I highly doubt your 50/50 research took these factors into consideration. If the odds are indeed 50/50 - which seems highly unlikely -, then even so it would be a smart thing to appoint a new manager. So why flip a coin? That would be extremely dumb. Are you asking me?