There are four main differences between good and clueless managers:
1. When a good manager takes over he needs a couple of months to implement his style of football, and immediately everybody can see what it's all about. And, no, he doesn't need top players in the squad. It's the style that beats his opponents, it's the style that creates chances, and the players are just the executioners. Many managers, and fans for that matter, don't understand one simple thing: it's easier for an average striker to score two goals from five chances, than for a top striker to score two goals from two chances. That's why many managers always complain, and always ask for new signings. And blame their own players for the inevitable defeats. I will never forget Francesco Guidolin and his "I have a good squad". He knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, you can always improve your squad with better and hungrier players, a process that should be a part of a natural flow, but never a solution. Tell me, what is better: a squad of top players who don't know what they are doing or a squad of average players who play a well-drilled style of play? Remember 5:0 thrashing of a QPR team 'worth" of at least £100m of new players?
When Graham Potter took over at Swansea, it took him a couple of months of pre-season, and we became a passing side whose goalkeepers and centre-backs regularly averaged 100% pass accuracy. When Bielsa took over at Leeds, it took him a couple of months to transform an average Leeds squad to a running and pressing monsters. I could go on and on with all the managers who have a recognisable style of play.
2. Good managers know what it takes to win football games in long term. They are not interested in short term gains and solutions. They stick to their style. No matter what. But all of them have a couple of things in common:
A) You have to outrun opposition
B) You have to press as a team to quickly regain possession
C) You have to outpass opposition both in terms of possession % and pass accuracy %.
With other words, you create a lot of chances, and you don't allow many chances against.
3. Good managers know how to actively manage a game during a game. This can be done in various ways.
A) By chosing field generals for the each line. A captain can't see everything and can't always correct things in each line. One has to be in charge for the defensive line, another one for the midfield line, and one for the attacking line.
B) By using analytical tools during the half time to improve things.
C) By using the hairdryer method during the half time to raise the energy levels and adrenalin.
D) By using subs at half time or as soon as necessary. A good manager has to be good at anticipating things. He has to prevent things, and not only react when it's too late. How many times we fans have said "We'll concede if we continue to play like this!"? And I'd argue that in 90% of time we concede.
E)
@Jackflash pointed out that there was a break last night when Bournemouth manager was giving instructions to his players. Steve Cooper was walking around and doing nothing. I am normally against a constant shouting from the dugout, and I still think it can be counter-productive and confusing because the players need to focus during a game, but a manager can always use these numerous breaks during a game to put his message accross.
4. A good manager should be able to teach his players the most under-rated aspect of the game, and that's how to read the game. Anticipation. I call it "What if".