Last week, I wrote about judging your own tactical decisions. If there was an underlying message to that presser, it was that judging tactics is very subjective.
This week, I feel like venturing into something even more subjective- judging managers. I came up with the idea for this presser while I was reading the Xpert Forum. As you can imagine, the big topic there this week is about the new SQ and the potential reemergence of longballs as a viable tactic. Hidden in that monstrosity of a topic is the damning comment, where one manager ridicules another with this statement: "You do realize you're talking to a better manger than yourself, right?".
I am rather fond of the underrated manager who was insulted, but I elected not to throw my trophy case on his side of the scale. The reason is that I am not entirely certain that those trophies mean what we all think that they mean. Are trophies a good measuring stick for a manager?
What are good measuring sticks for a manager? I would venture that one key indicator of a good manager is that they will do more with less. The obvious is that given equal talent, he or she will beat lesser managers regularly. But I feel that it is in the disadvantaged situation that a great manager shines. Looking back, this is the one reason that I am not too sore at Jesus and his Panda's for stealing my potential for multiple UL titles. Jesus' team was slightly better, and I was never able to overcome that disadvantage. This is something that the great managers would have been able to do. As such, by this measuring stick, I am not a great manager.
So doing more with less is an indicator. But what exactly is it an indicator of? Winning when at a disadvantage comes largely through Tactics. I feel that Tactics are rightly acknowledged as the key trait in a good or great manager. But it isn't the only thing that matters. Another good indicator is the overall team health and the quality of its build. It doesn't matter whether you are managing a conveyor belt, all same aged, or a hybrid of the two. Optimizing that build is a key signature of a good manager. One of the things I often look at when prepping a match, is the opposing team form. If we are both playing two per weeks, and the other team's form is much lower (depending upon age and other factors), I feel I have the edge as a manager. Teams that are well cared for, even in old age, are teams that are optimized to perform. This may not be as important as tactics, but things like form, teamwork, average age of the lineup and the like, can often overcome a weak tactical setup, so these factors should not be forgotten. Consider this- the main thing beyond player age that determines retirement probability is DV. If you aren't managing the oldies on your team for high form and >10 DV, you are missing something important.
The final facet of the greats is longevity. I am a geology professor in my non-X11 life, so I am predisposed to value longevity. A team that is well managed over the long run, requires a manager with an administrative bent. The only way to be able to afford being competitive for several years is to be a good fiscal manager and a shrewd judge of talent on the TM. Nothing in the game can earn you econs like managing the market. So if tactics are 45-60% of the pie, and team managing is 30-45%, the last bit is managing the financial aspect. Miss out on any one of the three, and you and your team are not meeting your potential.
So with this in mind, what are some poor measuring sticks of manager ability? An obvious one would be Manager Ranking. If you are measuring your ability by Manager Ranking, I think you might want to rethink things a bit. I have been ranked as high as 12th in the world, I am currently at 2300 and something. I feel I am a better manager today than when I was ranked 12th. The difference, I had built a team that was in it's prime and played in the XCL. Three matches per week make anyone look like an X11 god. Today, I play with a relatively weak team and have to battle hard just to make it to the next round of the cup. The result, fewer matches on my record, and a much lower ranking.
How about W's and L's? I don't think these are very good indicators either. So much of whether you win or lose is dependent upon your team and where it is at in its development. One of the main reasons I left GR FC was because there is a hidden treasure trove here at Cellar Door. I have in my team archives a complete record of Duffster's time here. If this team had been managed by anyone else, I would have never left the top of the UL. But three years of Duffster's tactics was too much to pass up. What did I find? Duffster, an XCL Champ and tactical genius, lost alot of games.
If there is a moral to this presser, it might be that we all have it in us to be good or bad managers at different times in our career, as such, measuring ourselves against one another at one point in time is the height of folly.
See you next week,
Q
|