- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,126
- Likes
- 913
- Favorite Player
- Schelotto
Watching football all these years to me it's become apparent there's 2 types of managers: a coach and a tactician. To win a league you need a good coach, to win a cup you need a tactician.Some examples of good coaches: Klopp, Conte, Guardiola, Wenger, Mancini(dont shoot me). Some examples of good tacticians: Mou, Benitez (before Napoli), Di Matteo, Allegri(dont shoot me).
This is not to say one manager cannot fulfill both. Every manager HAS TO fulfill both. Hold on I gotta take a shit, brb... fuck that took a while. Anyhow this I think is the main description of each role
A coach focuses on his OWN team. Most coaches have their own philosophy about how the team should play. Examples that come to mind are Klopp, Conte, Guardiola, Simeone, etc...
They focus mostly on team chemistry, on how the team should work together as a unit, etc....
A tactician focus on the OTHER team. They don't have some grand philosophy about the game should be played. They usually have 1 or 2 standard mainstream formations, and choose their lineups mainly based on how the other team plays.
If the other team has fast forwards, they play a low def. line. If the other team has slow tall forwards, they play a high line.
Based on these attributes its easy to see why a coach would benefit more over longer amount of games, and why tacticians benefit more in single/double legged ties in cup tournaments.
Having a good style of play and a playing philosophy benefits the team more in the long term, but being able to figure out your opponent's weaknesses, and setting your team to exploit them, benefits you more in cup tournaments.
That is the reason why coaches like Mancini/Conte, whose team plays nice football, struggle in cup tournaments. Their inability to understand the opponent's weaknesses, and setting your team to exploit them accordingly, is hindered by their inability to adapt to different settings.
Again as I mentioned before every manager has to fill both the role of a coach and the role of a tactician.
It's just some are more adept to one role than the other.
This is not to say one manager cannot fulfill both. Every manager HAS TO fulfill both. Hold on I gotta take a shit, brb... fuck that took a while. Anyhow this I think is the main description of each role
Coach:
A coach focuses on his OWN team. Most coaches have their own philosophy about how the team should play. Examples that come to mind are Klopp, Conte, Guardiola, Simeone, etc...
They focus mostly on team chemistry, on how the team should work together as a unit, etc....
Tactician:
A tactician focus on the OTHER team. They don't have some grand philosophy about the game should be played. They usually have 1 or 2 standard mainstream formations, and choose their lineups mainly based on how the other team plays.
If the other team has fast forwards, they play a low def. line. If the other team has slow tall forwards, they play a high line.
League Vs. Cup:
Based on these attributes its easy to see why a coach would benefit more over longer amount of games, and why tacticians benefit more in single/double legged ties in cup tournaments.
Having a good style of play and a playing philosophy benefits the team more in the long term, but being able to figure out your opponent's weaknesses, and setting your team to exploit them, benefits you more in cup tournaments.
That is the reason why coaches like Mancini/Conte, whose team plays nice football, struggle in cup tournaments. Their inability to understand the opponent's weaknesses, and setting your team to exploit them accordingly, is hindered by their inability to adapt to different settings.
Final Word:
Again as I mentioned before every manager has to fill both the role of a coach and the role of a tactician.
It's just some are more adept to one role than the other.
