You know, I don't give a ****. As far as I'm concerned you're a ****ing cretin and you've proved that many times over. Anyone whose default reaction to anyone who challenges or questions what they say is 'you're not intelligent enough to understand' is just a prick with no argument at all. Instead of this conceited 'argument', how about you explain yourself. Or are you not capable of doing that? You don't even say what your Phd is, it could be in toy ****ing trains for all we know. It means **** all. Get back in your box you boring ****.
I totally agree with you. I was responding to an idiot who actually did make that correlation. The only area in which the 2 do come together is in the area of strategy, but in terms of this thread, but that is a conversation I could have with Swarbs via PM
I am perfectly capable of explaining myself but there is no point in even attenpting to do so with people who are only interested in presenting their own limited point of view. I can assure you that my Ph.D. thesis is more than relevant to a discussion of strategy.
Bang on the money, all this tool has in his locker is the non-understanding line. And now he's gonna squeal cos he's been found out.
Do it then. Where is your proof that Alex Ferguson had 'nothing to do' with the setting up of a youth system that produced the class of 96? Sorry, but you do need to prove this as you've said enough times it was nothing to do with him. I KNOW that he was responsible, as any United fan does, you keep claiming he wasn't. Prove it. Instead of hiding behind the 'you don't understand' bull ****.
I don't care, I tend to eventually react like this when one person continues to question my intelligence whilst hiding behind his clown mask and his made up phd.
Who's even said that?? I think you're blowing everyone's argument out of proportion here, I think they call it attacking a straw man.
Clearly at this stage SAF is proven to be a greater manager, it's down to Kenny to change that in future years. Although that is unlikely due to time not being on his side and his time away from management. I truly believe if he had stayed at Liverpool 20 years ago then this debate would be reversed, although that's clearly hypothetical.
No one has said that although Dave is trying to, this guy came pretty close: I was simply using the great managers to put Dalglish's achievements in context, against the claim that Utd fans don't respect them. For me, Dalglish has achieved some success, but nothing that Souness, Houllier, Benitez, Hodgson and many others have achieved at some point in their managerial careers. Given how underwhelming those four were in charge of Liverpool and other clubs, I don't see what Dalglish brings to Liverpool other than this claimed "aura". And as we've seen with many managers, like Shearer and Keegan (the second time) at Newcastle, having this connection to the club and dressing room doesn't always translate into success in the long run.
I don't know where to start with this one. I'll give you Souness and Hodgson as underwhelming, but you can hardly include Benitez and Houlier in the same bracket as those two. Yes, they never won the league with us, but they did almost everything but. Also, remind me when Hodgson and Souness won the PL? (I'll let you have Houlier and Benitez since they won decent European leagues) Dalglish has won the English league 4 times, so surely that alone puts him among the greatest British managers? Before you say 'oh well, he only won because of the team he inherited', 1) You've still got to win the thing and 2) Man United have been the best team over the last 2 decades, so why hasn't Ferguson won it every year with them if it's that simple?
Why am I not surprised that this is still rumbling on? Who is "the greatest" is clearly a subjective thing. "Greatest" and "most successful" are not synonyms and clearly the success of anyone who is part of a team is dependent on many other factors in addition to their personal input. It could be argued that a manager who does well with limited resources is just as adept as one who wins trophies through having a huge amount of spending power and the other facilities available to a rich club. We can, through general consensus, decide those who we believe belong in the great manager category but who is the best is a matter of personal opinion and prejudice. It can never be "proven"and we could go on arguing about it for ever. And probably will.
Houllier wasn't underwhelming?! Then why do all Liverpool fans claim Benitez achieved such great things with the terrible squad Houllier left behind? And Benitez managed two trophies in six years, how can that not be underwhelming for a club of Liverpool's size? Regardless, They both have won multiple trophies in a very short space of time. Souness in Scotland and Hodgson in Sweden. You can bang on and on about the qualities of the respective leagues, but a manager can only achieve success with the team they are managing. Managing the best team in the English league to the English league title isn't going to be much different than managing the best team in Scotland to the Scottish league title. And at least those guys actually tried to carry on and build on their success. Well, if your argument is that league titles equal greatness, then you are putting SAF way ahead of Paisley and putting Dalglish ahead of Shankly. It's all about the context - the same way that many players can overachieve in good sides (Traore and his CL winners medal and Darron Gibson's PL winners medal spring to mind), so decent managers can overachieve when given access to the best resources and players. Roberto Mancini won three Serie A titles in a row with Inter, I don't see many people queuing up to claim he is one of the greatest Italian managers ever...
Yeah but Carroll for 35 million ha ha thank you very much honest he's average at best. Best is as good lol. Enrique is ok but he always has his head down.
Right, this may become very long winded but I will attempt to set out here an explanation of my original statement in an attempt to clarify matters: The whole point that I was trying to put across was that by his comprehensive adoption of the Kids, Ferguson had taken a gamble and got lucky. For those who care to go back and re-read the paragraph you will note that the very next sentance then goes on to say that he then built sides very successfully. I said that this was an emergent strategy ie that it evolved from the strategy that Ferguson was originally persuing but became the core of the strategy that he would continue to employ. Turning to the element of luck. I still believe that, if he had the option he would not have made such a radical introduction. He took a massive gamble, with the club's fortunes and his own career. This was not an odds-on gamble it was most certainly odds-against and therefore contained a very high degree of risk which means that more than just a small element of luck is involved. Now Swarbs argues, very cogently, that this was always Fergusons plan based upon his actions at previous clubs. I disagree. Not with the idea that youth played a large part in his forward planning but that he would make such a radically comprehensive change as part of any preconcieved plan. His previous pattern had been to gradually introduce youth so that over a period of seasons his side became younger and played in a style of his choosing. Now I don't care if any of you are season ticket holders at Old Trafford or even have a season ticket for London Underground, the information that you are using to proclaim that this was always his plan is, at best, 2nd/3rd hand. Neither you nor I really know the pressures that existed at the time in United's boardroom, the managers office or the training ground that influenced that decision. The books, articles, etc. that have been written about the subject should all carry a Government Health Warning stating THIS MAY NOT BE THE TRUTH. That is not unique to Manchester United or Ferguson, it happens to all organisations and individuals who operate within them. Was Wellington actually a better general than Bonaparte? Was Montgomery a better General than Rommel? Or did a myriad of other factors come into play that were beyond their control? We do know that histroy is written by the victors - hence both Wellington and Montgomery have been lauded as being the greater generals. However, with hindsight we can review that history and question some of the decsions and the reasons for which they were taken. Where I will concede is Ferguson's personal involvement in the youth policy and the individuals who were part of it. I said that the claim that Fercuson was the GREATEST manager had yet to be proved and that this was a question of logic. I still hold to that contention. Firstly because there is no agreed standard against which to test greatness and secondly because there is a whole future before us. Is Ferguson greater than Shankly? In many ways no. Ferguson has won more trophies than Shankly did but Shankly's legacy has already proved itself to be longer lasting. If you want to diminsh greatness to a mere trophy count then Paisley is greater than Ferguson given the timeframes as manager. To take it outside of the rivalry between United and Liverpool then should we not also consider the leagcy of Herbert Chapman? As for the future, none of us knows what the future may hold for a young manager such as Villas-Boas? The epitph of great can surely be awarded to many managers but the ultimate accolade cannot. Finally, and for me seriously, I want to address this point to Rusholme Ruffian. I may be many things (boring being one of them) but one thing I most certainly am not is a liar. If I claim to hold qualifications then I do. They were gained through hard work, study and yes a certain amount of luck!
The squad he left behind wasn't great, but he won numerous trophies in his time here. For that reason it wasn't underwhelming. All things come to an end, and his time didn't end as well as it could have, but it wasn't a failure. Benitez got us our 5th European Cup, so regardless of the rest of his time here, he'll be fondly remembered for that. If Robbie Fowler had managed you to your 19th title to overtake us, you'd remember him for it, even if he did nothing else of note. But it is though. Steve McClaren managed Twente, who were probably the 3rd best team in the league, to the dutch title. The following year he moved to Wolfsburg, reigning champions of Germany, and ****ted it up the wall. Plus, Blackurn weren't the best in the league when Dalglish won it with them, your lot were. Also, I don't see how not 'trying' to sustain success somehow marks Dalglish down. Would he be a better manager if he'd stayed for another 3 seasons at Blackburn and finished midtable each time? Surely you'd be here criticising him for doing so if he had. He left on a high, as I'm sure Ferguson intends to. I said Dalglish was 'among' the greatest. He's one a only a few to win the top flight title with two clubs. I never said, however, that titles are directly proportionate to greatness. Just because I didn't comment on the context, doesn't mean I was disregarding it. That said, I would put Ferguson at the top because his longevity is unequalled. Dalglish I'd put below Paisley and Shankly. He's probably not in the 'top 10' for me, but certainly top 20. I'm sure Mancini is considered at least in the top 20 too in Italy. Remember he hasn't been in management as long as a Ferguson or a Wenger, so there's plenty of time for him to move up. People generally look back on achievements more favourably the longer in the past they are. P.S Traore didn't overachieve, the whole team did.
Or if you want to look at it another way SAF has build United into a juggernaut comparable to what Shankly did with liverpool but he has lasted longer, won more trophies in a much more competitive league. Paisley is way beneath the legend that is SAF. Dominating a stale league for 8 years? reaping the benefits of Shanklys hard work? big whoop. Not on the same level, not even close. When SAF finally retires, or drops dead on the touchline, he'll go down in history as the greatest manager the English league, probably any league, has ever known. As for those saying dogleash might prove to be a greater manager... you need professional help.
In 20 years you'll be saying the same about Paul Ince. Watch this space... (P.S: You won't, he's ****e) But anyway, I agree. I don't think anyone will go 20+ years gain with the game how it is nowadays.
