JoeWesthead

I'm just playing devil's advocate and haven't given strong thought either way. However, when I try to work out who's going to win a game (and I've a pretty good record), I usually base it on the better players, who's on form etc.

But over time, perhaps it's the managers we should be comparing? And further than that, should opposition scouting on football place a greater emphasis on the likely actions of a manager?

Naturally, what happens on the pitch directly is out of the hands of the manager. But time and again we see average teams who appear to have a strong personality achieve - Allardyce, O'Neill and Mourinho all achieved without necessarily the best players.

When someone plays Arsenal would it be worthwhile looking at when Wenger is most likely to make his first sub? What is Ferguson's usual reaction to going a goal down? How does Benitez line up away from home?

I get the feeling managers more than anyone are creatures of habit and that over time they show themselves to make the same decisions over and over (at least ones that worked).

Red_Hector

I see your point. Strikes me as odd that not many people consider the ref as well.

Lermon

This you might find helpful:

LMA

You're right each manager has their styles but it isn't the end and all. Each game still revolves around the performance of the relative teams. Eg. Guus Hiddink's Russia vs Israel. Result 2-1 Israel.