Roberto De Zerbi has brought renewed spirit to Tottenham, boosting their survival hopes.
Analytics suggest a head coach is just an interchangeable cog in a team’s fate—but emotion and adaptability still matter in an ever-evolving game.
Your manager falls out with the sporting director, results slip, so you replace him. Simple enough. But the new hire is a terrible fit for the squad, results slide again, and you fire him. A weak leader would hesitate, hoping things turn around, but you are ruthless, decisive—you bring in a former youth player who has old stories to tell. Yet some consider his methods outdated, results falter, and you let him go. This time, you pull off a masterstroke: a manager who saved a team in similar trouble last season. He takes 15 points from his first nine league games, lifting you six points clear of the relegation zone. If you beat Newcastle at home on Sunday, you’re safe. You’re a genius, your recruitment skills unmatched.
That could be Nottingham Forest, but similar dynamics apply to Tottenham. Thomas Frank struggled there. Igor Tudor lasted just 44 days—a benchmark for a terrible fit. Tottenham dropped into the bottom three after losing to Sunderland in Roberto De Zerbi’s first match in charge. They conceded a stoppage-time equalizer against Brighton. An already absurdly long injury list somehow grew longer. The implosion seemed inevitable. Yet Spurs then beat Wolves and Aston Villa. True, Villa rested players before their Europa League semi-final second leg and were dreadful. Still, there was greater spirit and, most importantly, clear signs of De Zerbi’s philosophy—repeatedly baiting Villa’s press. Watching Tottenham over the past four games has been like watching a time-lapse video of a plant growing: the incremental preseason work compressed into public view.
Vítor Pereira has made a significant impact since taking over at Nottingham Forest, even if they lost their Europa League semi-final to Aston Villa.
But are these recent improvements really down to the new managers? In *Soccernomics*, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski reference economist Marko Terviö’s theory: in markets for highly talented individuals where ability is only revealed on the job, companies have limited incentive to find the very best because once that ability is shown, the individual sells to the highest bidder. That sounds exactly like the market for football managers. They argue that managers don’t matter that much—an idea that gained traction earlier this year when Chelsea director Daniel Finkelstein reportedly said something similar to fans protesting Chelsea’s failure to pursue Luis Enrique. Separate research by Liverpool’s former director of research, Ian Graham, and the Institute for Economic Affairs also reached similar conclusions.
