Is trophy the best determinant of the best coach?

[castano]

I feel the need to ask you guys cause i might be invited to argue this again on 'sports palava'....a TV show.The main point i proved the last time(vs a chelsea journalist) was that mourinho seemed the best because he was fortunate to be and win trophies at the start of a new money/player mercenaries revolution which caught other coaches/teams unaware and there was no immediate answer to that at that time.But now things are different.Big spending don't scare opponents now cause the awareness/preparedness level is higher.Spend a zillion and you can still be trophyless...ask liverpool.I also pointed to the fact that the Champion league he won for porto was in a 'unique' and less competitive year where the favourites just fell off mysteriously and that his serie A success was because the league is no more competitive as milan and juve are no better than the evertons,villas and yids.So,how wrong was i?and what's your take?

[undapresha]

I think there are too many variables involved in a club's situation to simply state that trophies are the best indicator of a good coach. Things like resources, the squad, facilities and so forth all act as mechanisms through which it can be made easier, or more difficult, to win trophies.

[Goonie]

Juve and Milan are better than all those teams mentioned imo. So thats a bad point to use aggainst Mourinho. Mourinho has a history of winning things, he wins things wherever he goes. Bringing the title to SB in his first season was a very difficult challenge regardless of the money he had.

On to the main topic though, no trophies do not show the best manager e.g. Roy Hodgson was clearly the best last season imo.

Some teams don't have the biggest squads or thebest players but play well as team and finish well above their ability. This is down to the managers and they deserve respect for this, on the same level as managers who win things and sometimes even above.

[Gunner Down Under]

No

I mean if you get a team 2nd in the FA Cup, 2nd in the league etc and the team 1st ends up getting knocked out in the 3rd round of the FA Cup next season then I would say that the team getting 2nd repeatedly over 2 years would be better because of consistency.

[Arsenal Tone]

It depends on the club. At a big club with a history of winning then trophies has to be the yardstick. At a smaller club, European qualification, a cup run and entertainment are more important.

[Prince]

we haven't won for 4 seasons now
still Wenger is considered top along with Fergie.

[Gunner Down Under]

Because he's consistent

In the League we always come either 2nd, 3rd or 4th (always exaggerating here) and don't drop out, yet Everton for example were near the relegation zone not very long ago, City have the big bucks which is no guarantee of success

And also Wenger has the past running to go for him.

[Prince]

so what i was trying to say was that trophy's aren't the best was to determine a coach

[Gooner Girl]

Is a coach better if they wins the fa cup with a squad worth millions of pounds containing the worlds best players and quality back up team, training ground and loads of money to spend or is a coach better if they starts off with the very basic of resources in terms of average players, not a lot of spending money, crap facilities - yet takes that team up from blue square to division 2 in a few years for example. Personally i would go with the second option. Judging a good quality coach should be looking at how well they do with the resources available and that doesn't always mean winning trophies.

When i was doing my swimming teaching assesment the person taking the course said actually given that once you have reached the age of about 12 if you haven't been taught the basics correctly you're pretty stuffed in trying to perform a stroke well and therefore the best coaches should be working at grass roots level putting in quality foundations - can believe that could go for other sports to. Do you think Arsene wenger would come and coach my schools U8 girls football team?

[StLGooner]

No

The best coach doesn't always get the trophies. I would also say, that there have been very average coaches that win alot of trophies, but they have just been fortunate to have good players and money to spend. Not just talking about football, but sports over here as well.

If a coach can build a team with little money and only win 1 trophy, in my eyes he is better than a coach that has unlimited money and wins 10 trophies.
Coaches can only do so much, tactics and motivation can only get you so far, eventually it all comes down to the type of players you have, very rarely a coach will take average players and win something with them.

[TheLittleMozart]

No

The best coach doesn't always get the trophies. I would also say, that there have been very average coaches that win alot of trophies, but they have just been fortunate to have good players and money to spend. Not just talking about football, but sports over here as well.

If a coach can build a team with little money and only win 1 trophy, in my eyes he is better than a coach that has unlimited money and wins 10 trophies.
Coaches can only do so much, tactics and motivation can only get you so far, eventually it all comes down to the type of players you have, very rarely a coach will take average players and win something with them.

While I agree with you some-what on that mate, but I think in my opinion winning trophies does make you a great coach/manager.
You can have all the money in the world and buy whoever you want but a good coach gets these players organised,working as a team and playing well.

Just look at Real Madrid for instance, they have arguabley the best sqaud of players in the world withing reason and should be rnning the leauge but have a poor manager so aren't.

A good manager will get trophies no matter how poor his squad are; Sir Alex Ferguson with Aberdeen winning the UEFA Cup and Mourhino winning the Uefa Cup and Champions Lauge with Porto, to name a few.

[StLGooner]

No

The best coach doesn't always get the trophies. I would also say, that there have been very average coaches that win alot of trophies, but they have just been fortunate to have good players and money to spend. Not just talking about football, but sports over here as well.

If a coach can build a team with little money and only win 1 trophy, in my eyes he is better than a coach that has unlimited money and wins 10 trophies.
Coaches can only do so much, tactics and motivation can only get you so far, eventually it all comes down to the type of players you have, very rarely a coach will take average players and win something with them.

While I agree with you some-what on that mate, but I think in my opinion winning trophies does make you a great coach/manager.
You can have all the money in the world and buy whoever you want but a good coach gets these players organised,working as a team and playing well.

Just look at Real Madrid for instance, they have arguabley the best sqaud of players in the world withing reason and should be rnning the leauge but have a poor manager so aren't.

A good manager will get trophies no matter how poor his squad are; Sir Alex Ferguson with Aberdeen winning the UEFA Cup and Mourhino winning the Uefa Cup and Champions Lauge with Porto, to name a few.

The media and fans classify the coaches as great if they win trophies (not always me), doesn't neccesarily mean they are great. Yes, you still have to be a good coach to win trophies even with the best players, but a coach who builds a team without money and wins will always be better in my eyes than a coach who wins with a cash strapped team.

In my eyes (and this will be contraversial of course) I think Mourinho is overrated as a coach, yes he did good things with Porto, but ever since then he's had it pretty easy with resources for players, then he takes over an already succesful Inter team. Now he's quoted as saying he'd take the Liverpool job if they had better finacial backing. Does he not trust his coaching abilities without the stability of money to back him up?

[Arsenal Tone]

I'd argue that mourinho is a great coach because he has made tactical changes that alter games. Be it a sub or formation change it usually worked. People say his teams were boring (like GG at arsenal) but I'd argue that his teams being so well organised makes him a great coach.

I understand why people want to hate mourinho but anyone who says he isn't a great manager is just bias.

[StLGooner]

I'd argue that mourinho is a great coach because he has made tactical changes that alter games. Be it a sub or formation change it usually worked. People say his teams were boring (like GG at arsenal) but I'd argue that his teams being so well organised makes him a great coach.

I understand why people want to hate mourinho but anyone who says he isn't a great manager is just bias.

I just said he's overrated, not that I hate him or don't think he's good. He ain't great imo. And it ain't biased, its just....... well my opinion.