Rating coaches?

I started a twitter thread on this, but it's easier format wise to just reproduce my thoughts here. The premise, or question I guess, is what's the criteria when we rate managers? A common theme I see out there is "look at so and so, he's got his team playing good football, if only he had top players", and the like. Also, on the other hand, you have guys that coach top clubs that are simply rated for winning trophies. It's especially irritating right now, when it seems like every game is attack vs defense for the full 90 minutes, and a decent percentage of the time the defensive minded team gets at least a point.

Two examples of this phenomenon are Scott Parker and Zinedine Zidane. Personally, I don't rate either, but I'll explain why. On the surface, it's like the two sides are playing different sports. Madrid are expected to win every game, while Fulham are expected to go right back down, just like the last time they were in the Premier League. Focusing on Fulham first, I think they have better players than at least three other clubs. They had a better squad than Leeds and West Brom in the Championship, which weighs on my mind when assessing this season's results, fair or not. The point here is Parker had them playing boring, pragmatic football last season, and it took a brilliant strike from Joe Bryan/ David Raya howler to achieve promotion. This season, they're in 18th. Statistically, they "should" be outside the bottom three with Sheffield United, but stats don't win games. The stats also say the team in first should be fighting for fourth, and relegation-fighting Brighton should be in a European spot. With that team, to me, the biggest issue is scoring. They've conceded two more goals that they should, but they're 5 off the pace in goals scored. In one or two articles a while back I mentioned that I didn't expect Mitrovic to score more than 8 goals this season, despite scoring 25 or whatever it was in the Championship. The reason for this was two fold. I don't think he's good, is one, and secondly it's a difference in how teams will play against Fulham, as well as how Fulham set up. I look at the playoff final as an example of how Parker would have them play, and it's been true. Basically, it's about avoiding defeat rather than trying to win. Half the teams in the league do this, so it's nothing new. The problem is it looks good at times, but is mostly ineffective. Let me explain. If you aim to get a point, you probably won't win. If you aim to win, you might get a draw. Of course, you could lose any given game, but that mentality is what matters. Recently, Fulham had a stretch of not losing in 6 games, but they were all draws. I guess what I'm saying here is, and this maybe isn't' the best comparison, but Leeds play a style that leads them to win and lose lots of games. At the end of the day, three wins and three losses gets you more points than six draws. Pretty sure Mourinho has a nice quote about that, or someone prominent in the managerial game. My point with Parker is every team has nice passages of play. They're professional footballers at the highest level. To me, when you have a guy who can score goals like Mitrovic, and they you simply drop him for guys that can run but don't score goals, the subsequent failures to score at least partly fall on the coach.

Now, for Zidane. Where shall I start... I guess it's the age-old question, how much of an impact does a coach/manager have? To me, it's a case of most are probably a wash, while the bad ones actively hinder their teams, and the top ones will their players to win things. I get that winning is what matters, but style does as well, especially at a super club like Madrid. A recent example is Juventus cutting ties with Allegri for Sarri. It didn't work out, but the goal was to play better football because that helps the brand, which clubs do care about. With Zidane, it's been all about crossing. That worked with a freak athlete in Cristiano Ronaldo winning header after header and scoring 40+ goals a season. Now, with midgets and Benzema the only aerial threat outside of Ramos, guess what, it's not effective. That's the thing with Guardiola. As much as he's won things because of having top players, it's undeniable that he gets his teams to play beautiful football, and he makes adjustments when he loses. Another key player was Marcelo. He had a crazy cohesion with Cristiano, and Ramos would cover for him, so he was incredible going forward. Mind you, he's never been good defensively. Now, with lesser players on the left side (and an unfit Hazard), Marcelo has a statistic of being in the side pretty much every time Madrid lose. I also don't get how he's still there, given they had Reguilon and before that Theo Hernandez, both of whom are balling out since leaving Madrid. Also, I should mention that Zidane plays favorites and it's almost pointless bringing in new players because he won't play them. It's more than one or two players; it's a trend going back to 2017/18. Modric, for instance, has had so many potential successors at the club, who really should have been given playing time, but Zidane sat them on the bench and they left. That's the reality. Every manager has players he regrets not using; it's part of the job.

To summarize; there is the objective reality that winning is what people remember, but at the same time, most clubs aren't going to win trophies and someone has to manage them. There's no point really in comparing managers, because every situation is different. Clubs have various levels of attainable success. Certain styles work with certain players, and where you are in the table dictates your objectives and how other teams will play against you.