Do we overemphasise the influence of Premier League managers? | OneFootball

David Moyes made three stoppage-time substitutions against Man City -- just seconds before their last-gasp equaliser

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

Football is famously a results business, and the buck almost always stops with the manager. But with the dust settled on Monday’s draw with Manchester City, and the inevitable debate on these pages that followed, I found myself pondering whether we overemphasise the influence of the man in the dugout.

​David Moyes made three stoppage-time substitutions on Monday night, each occurring just seconds before City’s last-gasp leveller.

Nathan Patterson’s introduction for Merlin Röhl drew ire, even if the German had run himself into the ground. The former slipped when attempting to close down Jeremy Doku before his equaliser, while another late substitute, Carlos Alcaraz, did not cover himself in glory either.

​But how much of the blame lies with Moyes? A decision-maker and influencer, of course, but should he really shoulder the responsibility for basic defensive lapses? City’s second goal, dissecting the home defence just seconds after Everton had established a 3-1 lead, was even worse.

Substitutions are one route of managerial influence, in a role where there are a myriad of factors out of their control. The imbalance of quality between teams, vagaries of refereeing decisions and VAR influence, and pure fortune, on either side of the coin, to name a few.

​That’s not to absolve Moyes of any blame. He has his culpability this season, and his flaws have been discussed with increasing repetition on these pages. But until the three pillars of success are strong: recruitment, investment, and coaching, Everton will always be up against it. There’s an argument that the importance is in that order.

​Many of the Premier League’s recent overachievers, Brighton, Brentford, and Bournemouth, have lost highly-touted head coaches without as much as batting an eyelid. Each of those sides have excelled in unearthing talent, allowing for further investment through substantial sales, and coaches to succeed with the spoils.

​Chelsea, in contrast, have had eye-watering investment, but without the talent ID or coaching to make it a success.

​Managers were once the figureheads of football clubs, but those days appear in the distant past. This is an era in which sporting directors and transfer panels share the control, but rarely a portion of the blame.

Sir Alex Ferguson shaped Manchester United in his own image, and their decline since his exit has been well-documented, but that looks an increasing anomaly. Liverpool might hail Jurgen Klopp’s individual impact, but again, the German was one piece of the puzzle. It was no coincidence that the club started to slide once Michael Edwards exited and Klopp took on a greater control of transfers.

​Everton, right now, need improvement in all areas. The seventh-highest net spend of last summer was a necessary start, with only Brighton, among teams that will play in the top tier next season, having invested less across the last five seasons.

​The jury remains out on most of those signings, and the hope will be that Everton can target ceiling-raisers this summer, after a 2025 transfer window in which quantity was as much the focus as quality.

​And so, back to Moyes. The 63-year-old can be uninspiring and pragmatic to a fault, but there’s logic to Everton’s interest in an extension. The proverbial "safe pair of hands" might just be what this board wants, a risk-averse leader to keep things steady until the other pillars of success are strong. The frustration from the fans will be if the timeline takes longer than expected.

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Net spending is material as a financial monitor, but less so as a measure of investment for team development. Looking purely at building the team, particularly with having had loan players and players out of contract, gross spend is more indicative and Everton in this case were among the lowest. For top 6 sides 120 million gets you a striker or a midfielder. Everton spent this on 8 players. Net spend is merely one way of paying for your gross spend and bringing in talent

Before blaming the manager, we need to look at the quality of the squad he inherited. Individually players are not at top EPL level and not capable of playing the type of football that some of the more entitled fans expect and think they deserve. Moyes deserves credit for getting the best from the squad he has, motivating them and moulding them into a team able to compete. With substantial debt recruitment has focused on younger players, in the hope of generating profit. Ultimately this is the strategy teams are increasingly focused on, but it is difficult to get riight. Dibling is a prime example, with purchase based on the first half of last season, ignoring his decline in the second half which saw him drop from southamptons starting line-up.

"capable of playing the type of football that some of the more entitled fans expect and think they deserve"

Its official. Expect entertaining football and your entitled

What is this 'type of football' nonsense anyway.

There are so many ways to play football. My gripe with davey dull-ball is that it's so damn boring.

Just play with intensity and intent, no matter your tactics or style of play and the fans will back you and support you.

Monday's game showed that. The first half was truly abject, no intensity at all. The second half we had a go, put some pressure on, played with intent and should have won the game. There was no discernible shift in the 'style'. There was simply an upshift in energy and forcefulness for 20 minutes.

Unfortunately, David Moyes will always default to sucking the life out of games, decreasing risk and boring the life out of fans. Its how he's made a career.