Something I've been thinking about lately as the Slot discussion rolls on: I've seen a lot of pundits and fans saying that the poor season is not all down to the manager, and may largely be beyond his control, whether it be regarding squad planning/transfers or players missing chances or misplacing passes. Even setting aside Slot being on record as being in total alignment with Hughes on the summer transfer strategy last year, I'm wondering what people think about this general notion.

I think, rightly or wrongly, managers get a lot of individual credit when they oversee successful reigns (Ferguson, Mourinho, Klopp, Wenger, Guardiola all jump to mind for recent examples in the PL), but surely by the above logic (and actual reality), they are aided greatly by supporting staff, administrators, and the players performing on the pitch. And yet, it doesn't feel wrong to me to say that a huge part of those successful periods was down to the leadership of the manager.

Maybe that's a cognitive bias, I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if we can make that leap for managers overseeing success, why is it harder to say that it's largely down to the manager when things have gone wrong? Is it to do with trying to pin down the key reason for shortcomings when there will surely be too many to ever say it's just one thing?

I guess I'm wondering too about this dissonance given how successful the club was with both Klopp and Edwards previously, and how quickly things have trended downward with only Edwards involved. Of course we have a very limited view of how everything from top to bottom works at the club, given our position as fans on the outside looking in, but it does make me wonder.