Some Chelsea fans I know credit Hiddink for the success the following year, they say that Carlo waited until this year to implement his tactics and that is why they are failing...
Bozz. There is two sides to the Ferguson debate.Yes he did a ''Bill Shankly'' and pull a club up by the bootstraps and build a dynasty.That is something that has to be respected and admired. However.On the other side of the coin.Its harder to continue a dynasty than create one and thats the reason why I rate Bob Paisley so highly.I've heard Man United fans call him Bob ''I had a team built for me'' Paisley,thus knocking his achievements.In that respect,I would take the shine off Fergusons achievements by suggesting that Bob Paisley succeeded a messiah,Ferguson succeeded a moron.Mr Bean would have done a better job than Ron Atkinson. My question is would Ferguson have been as successful if he stepped immediately into Matt Busbys shoes.I don't think so. I know for a fact that Bob Paisley hadn't the stubbornness to build an empire from scratch there is no debating that.However Bob Paisley made a great team an even better team,by changing nothing.He changed the odd player,and he didn't continue with ALL of Shanks team as he had to replace two full-backs when he became boss,as Chris Lawler and Alec Lindsey were retiring.He also made a brave decision in letting Larry Lloyd go,and it paid off as academy graduate Phil Thompson was overall a better player. I just wonder,how will Fergusons successor do,when Ferguson calls it a day,will Man United fans be quick to dismiss Bob Paisleys achievements then.Can Jose Mourinho do it.I don't think so.I'll tell you why,He's too stubborn.To build an empire you need to be down right stubborn and arrogant,and thats Mourinho,Ferguson and even Shanks,but to carry one on.You need to be calm,and have the ability to change little.Its basically the opposite.I reckon if Ferguson goes,they should let Mourinho go to chelsea and take Guus Hiddink themselves.
That's an interesting theory. I guess it all depends on how much input Ancelotti had into Ballack, Cole, Belletti, Carvalho and Deco leaving at the end of last season. They all played pretty crucial roles in the double winning season, particularly Ballack and Cole, and I think they've missed them this season. If Ancelotti ok'd the departures then it implies he probably was trying (and failing) to impose his own tactics on the club and it backfired pretty badly. But if they were sold / released against his wishes and just cos the club wanted to reduce the wage bill, then Carlo is just another example of a top manager getting screwed over by Abramovich's desire to interfere...
I personally think if Man Utd were to change manager now - regardless of who took over they would not be able to continue the success they've had until Man Utd are out of the red (whether that be by Glazers paying off the debts or a take over). the Man Utd job (like the inter job at the start of this season) is a poisoned chalice where by whoever takes over will fail. I think their best bet for when Fergie retires would be Owen Coyle, I think they need to keep the manager british as Man Utd are not a continental team, when they win in europe because they play like they do in the premier league - thats a compliment to them as it shows that they have their way and it's their way or the highway. I do think Man Utd should go for a young manager next and be extremley patient with him, much like the Liverpool way, it's not the Manchester United way of getting rid of managers and I think that the Manchester United managers job should be seen as something of privilage - not someones God given right because they have won the champions league with Real Madrid a couple of times... we're veering away from the topic now
St Mirren, scottish league, a long long, did I say long time ago, clutching st straws Swarbs, thats pathetic matey. Jose is just a far superior manager to Fergie, Jose has the man management and mind games skills of Fergie, but he backs it up with tactical prowess, you can't seriously think Fergie is a master tactician, look at Inter v Barca compaired to United v Barca, and not the 1 0 afair when Barca were in slight transition Inter faced a better Barca side than ye did in th eFinal and they still beat em, it is not a wum thing swarbs, it is just the truth. Hiddink, has moved all over the place and taken all sorts of jobs, I am sure if he stayed at any of those clubs for 30 years he would have had success don't you think? Fergie also relies heavily, tactically on other coaches and is in fact inept at times, not since queiroz left United have nowhere near emulated that style and quality of play, regardless of their league position right now. FFS Bolton should have beaten you, they never went for the throat and it cost them in hte end, that was a joke pf a performance far worse than Liverpool v Braga, but Uusi gave you a gift you jammy cnts
Eugh, I'm so glad we don't have an owner like Abramovic! Chelsea can have the trophies they have won and the players they have brought because I wouldn't swap what we have now for the world. People say Liverpool fans bang on about their history too much but it's that history that has every player, fan & member of staff united and looking forward to the future. Liverpool FC feels like a family with the right people doing the right things in the right places. It must be so frustrating as a manager - a champions league winning manager having your nomark no noting owner butting his nose in to somethign he knows very little about
Absolutely agree. That's one of the reasons I don't mind having the Glazers as owners. Say what you will about the debt, they leave SAF to manage the team as he likes and have never interfered in the team affairs. All they focus on is maxing out our commercial and broadcasting revenue and getting the stadium expanded. Yes the debt is a drag, but for a club with the profitability of United I'd rather have the Glazers than Abramovich any day.
I think he figured that out himself as he seems to take more international jobs than club ones. I predicted Scolari would the first manager sacked that season. I was wrong: he was second.
How is it pathetic to talk about St Mirren, when Liverpool fans cite Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley whose greatest achievements were also around that time? Or is history only relevant when it's Liverpool's history? Besides which, SAF has been at United for 25 years, so any achievements with another club are bound to have been ages ago. Speaking of which, if you don't rate a manager who can't bring instant success to a club, does that mean you don't rate Bill Shankly, who took the same amount of time as SAF to bring success to Liverpool? Or are you just another damn hypocrite? For the record, I consider Shankly, Paisley, Ferguson and Busby to all be great managers each with their own individual strengths. Just like KPR said above - Paisley couldn't build an empire from scratch, but could take a good team and make them even better. Shankly and Ferguson couldn't turn a club into winners overnight, but they could build consistently, and improve on every club the managed, be they St Mirren, Workington, Man Utd or Liverpool. I've never denied that Mourinho is a superior short term manager and tactician to SAF (and every other manager I can think of), but until he's had a long spell at a top club it's impossible to compare the two directly. Mourinho has never developed a player from scratch. Never taken a player like Giggs, Beckham, Scholes, Ronaldo through from being a raw talent to being a world class footballer. And never stuck around at a club long enough to do what Shankly, Paisley, Ferguson and Busby all did, and see their first top team be dismantled before building another one. Until he does that, it's pointless to compare him to managers who have.
Firstly.I don't think Ferguson is all that good tactically,However he does what all great managers do,he rules with an iron fist in a silk glove.If anyone was tactically good at Man United it was Carlos Queiroz.However Quieroz never had Fergusons man management skills or enthusiasm.The same applied to Liverpool with the Shankly/Paisley combination. Shanks was a wonderful man manager,his enthusiasm shone like a beacon.Was he tactically brilliant.No is the answer. He like Ferguson ruled with an iron fist in a silk glove.Bob Paisley was the tactically brilliant one.However Bob couldn't man manage.He left that to his next in command,and he was helped a great deal in that respect by Joe ***an.In fact when it came to team-talks Bob Paisley wasn't the strongest.But he compensated for that by being tactically brilliant,he built a well oiled machine that didn't need any motivation.In other words,he didn't have to give long winded team talks.He just said ''same again lads''.
For the reason I mentioned above,He can't man manage.Some people are more suited to coaching than managing ie Brian Kidd,Ray Harford(RIP),Roy Evans.All decent coaches,but managing is a different kettle of fish.Roy Evans for example was a brilliant coach.He won 7 central league titles in 9 seasons as Liverpool reserve team manager.Some of the players he coached ended up in Liverpools and other teams first teams...examples,Ian Rush(Liverpool),Ronnie Whelan(Liverpool),Craig Johnston (Liverpool),Steve Nicol(Liverpool),Jim Beglin(Liverpool),They all learnt their trade in Liverpools reserves before making the first team.Here are others that he coached that made it elsewhere.Dave Watson(Everton He captained them to the FA Cup in 1995),Kevin Sheedy(Everton,title twice and FA Cup winner and CWC winner),Steve Ogrizovic(Coventry,FA Cup winner 1987)
Personally (and trying to be as unbiased as possible) I think Ferguson is pretty good tactically, although not consistently able to outwit some of his opponents. He does make some tactical masterstrokes - he was the first one to work out how to counter Scolari's Chelsea by targeting the fullbacks in 08/09, and managed to contain Barca over two legs in 2008, which I think is the first time that's been done in the CL era. But he can also pretty big tactical errors in games, usually when he lets his attacking instincts get the better of him, and can struggle to respond when teams switch their formation to counter us as Chelsea did against us at SB this season. He's never going to be remembered as one of the game's great tacticians, but then apart from Mourinho I can't think of any PL era manager who will be. As for Quieroz, I personally don't think he's particularly strong tactically. When he was managing Sporting he made some huge tactical errors, just like at Madrid and Portugal. Although it is debatable how much tactical input he had at Madrid. I think he was a good balance to SAF, as his natural defensive tactics counters SAF's attacking focus, but it's hard to say he was absolutely tactically superior.
Swarbs.Although I agree with the majority of your points. But your are forgetting something.......Liverpool vs Barcelona in the Nou Camp 2007.Liverpool beat them.?????????Didn't Rafa tactically out-think them.I'm not saying Rafa was perfect by any means,because there were decisions he made were bizarre. and that is being kind,like going in against AC Milan in 2007 with one up front and no pace?.It defies logic.The year he won it,he left Didi Hamann on the bench and put half fit Harry Kewell on from the start.This again defies logic. Ferguson CAN be good tactically.But there is occasions when he commits footballing suicide.One prime example was against Barcelona in 2009 in the CL final. He attempted to go toe to toe with Barcelona and United got spanked.Playing Ronaldo up front on Rooney on the wing.What was all that about.Mourinho has flaws tactically tone prime example was against Liverpool in 2005,Mourinho's plan B was to put Robert Huth on as a sub......up front.Now that is the sign of pure desperation,and tactically not very clever. However.I reckon Rafa Benitez tactically is better than both Ferguson and Mourinho.But both and this is 1000 times over,are far superior man managers,and Ferguson is a far better man manager than Mourinho,due to the fact Ferguson learnt from the best when it came to man management.He was taught by Matt Busby,Jock Stein and Bill Shankly.I read a story that Ferguson used to listen to tapes of Bill Shankly speaking to motivate himself when he was Aberdeen boss.
"he was the first one to work out how to counter Scolari's Chelsea by targeting the fullbacks in 08/09, and managed to contain Barca over two legs in 2008" Barca were a shadow of the side that beat you in the final never mind the current side. Most managers know how to dealwith fullbacks, but not always do they have the staff on the pitch. Fergie master stroke, haw haw haw And as for Hamann ni the CL, if he was on first half, we'd have still been losing with no big change to make in the second half, I reckon had Didi started we would have lost that final, it was the manner of the first half collapse that made Milan think it was over, otherwise they'd have made sure. re man management, Fergie never has to get a bunch of spoilt stars to play well together. He has had a decent 10 years in the prem without any real competition too. He just cant be compaired to managers that travel around different countries and different leagues and do well, he just cant, different situation and european managers have outwitted him time and time again, hence the real lack of european success during all their years of dominance, when Liverpool dominated the top flight they dominated europe too, that is a what a great team does
I am one Liverpool fan and I never mentioned Shankly or anyone else. You cant compare a current manager to one of those, Busby ect, different game different time. We are talking about Fergie's tenure, he's had a few years to get it right, had probably the best group of youngsters ever to come through together at an english team and 10 or more years of no real consistent competition and the FA very friendly over those years too. He's had massive help and can in no way take all the credit, Queiroz was a massive influence on United too amongst other coaching staff. He played it safe and stayed with United and didn't take on new challenges. Fergie has not felt pressure in that job for a decade at least
When I said "shut Barca out" I meant keep them from scoring over two legs. No mean feat when they had Deco, Eto'o, Xavi and Iniesta, with Henry and Gudjohnsen coming off the bench! And we were without Vidic, with Hargreaves at right back, for both games. I agree with you that Rafa was tactically good, although not better than Ferguson and Mourinho in absolute terms. He was probably better than both of them at working out how to use his stronger team to counter opponents that were superior on paper, like Barca, Utd, Chelsea, Real and Milan, and better at defensive tactics than Ferguson, but worse at coping when his best players were missing and at consistently working out how to beat inferior teams. For every good tactical move he made to turn a game around against a team, he'd often make a bad one that cost you points against weaker teams in the league, particularly in 08/09 with all those draws that should have been wins. He and Ferguson were both strong in different areas, but Mourinho is better than both of them purely for his ability to consistently take advantage of things like turnovers in possession. Really? Pretty much exactly the same line up, except with Deco instead of Henry and Yaya Toure instead of Busquets? Hardly a shadow of the side from the next season... Apart from when he first joined United and had to deal with Atkinsons bunch of alcoholics primadonnas. the only reason he hasn't had to deal with spoilt stars since then is that he's never signed any spoilt players, and has made sure all the players he's developed and managed are primarily team players who recognise the team comes first. When players start getting too big headed, like Yorke and Cole did, he ships them out. That's the true sign of a quality man manager - one who prevents problems rather than fighting them all the time. He's seen off competition from Blackburn, Newcastle, Arsenal and Chelsea, three of which were being bankrolled by multi millionaire owners and spent much more than we were able to as a plc. He probably wouldn't have done as well as he has if he'd moved clubs a lot, but then Mourinho probably wouldn't have done as well as he had if he'd had to stay at one club and rebuild his squad over and over again using revenue he generated himself. Different managers thrive in different situations. You're comparing different eras there. Back when Liverpool dominated the top flight, it was standard for one team to dominate Europe for a long period of time - look at Bayern and Ajax with three in a row each right before Liverpool. Even Forest managed two in a row. And Liverpool's period of dominance corresponded with a period of domiance for English teams in general - over that eight year period the EC was won by English clubs seven times. No other country has ever had that level of dominance. You can't compare that to the Champions League era, where no club, and no country, has ever won two titles in a row. And some of the most dominant clubs - Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, haven't even managed two finals in a row. I'm not trying to undermine Liverpool's achievement - five European Cups is the most impressive achievement by any English club by a long way. But comparing Liverpool's European record in the 1970s/80s to United's in the 90s/00s would be like saying Liverpool weren't as dominant in English football as they only won one league and FA cup double, whereas United won three - the direct comparison isn't fair as doubles weren't won as frequently back then. Like you said - different game, different time.
What I am saying swarbs is that, in a time of great European sides Liverpool were at the pinnacle. I deem the treble winning side of United ot be their finest modern team yet they were winners of hte CL, with some fortune as I well know about but certainly not nowhere near masters of europe at any point. 3 finals yes, but have Liverpool got 2 CL finals without ever being in danger of winnig the PL, such things didnt happen then, all the teams in hte comp were champions, everyone you played were a good side, not like the current format, in that format you couldn't hav a bad start and a couple of handy games to get going. No sir, you hit the ground running or you were out. Thsi format is far easier to progress as Liverpool proved reaching two finals in 3 years. For that spell and a few years after European football was in a bit of a slump the way the the top of the premiership is right now. I'd say it was far more difficult for Liverpool to dominate that comp than as it is now. There were no make weight sides in the competition, Liverpool then were just that good
Bringbackfootee. I've heard many a Man United fan discredit Liverpools European Cups because they beat Borrusia Mochengladbach and Club Brugge.But those teams were both champions of Germany and Belgium respectively.If Anderlecht and Bayern Munich had to have been champions in 1976 and 1977,Liverpool probably would have played them.But they weren't.So they didn't. Liverpool in 1981 beat Real Madrid,the only time Real Madrid have lost a final.They in 1984 beat Roma in their own back yard.So there is nothing to discredit. And coming from 3-0 down at half time against AC Milan is one hell of an achievement,especially with that team,the team than NOBODY gave a chance.
The late 70s and early 80s was a time of many great European sides the great European sides, but none of those sides really saw their periods of domiance overlap. You had Madrid in the late 50s, Ajax in the early 70s, Bayern in the mid 70s, Liverpool in the late 70s and early 80s, and Milan in the early 90s, but none of those teams competed with each other. Since the Champions League era started, no team has been dominant because it is so much more difficult. Teams find it very easy to build and rebuild, when compared to the 70s and 80s when Italian teams weren't allowed any foreign players, Spanish clubs were going on strike, both Italian and French football were dominated by corruption and there was very little money in football. Back then, if a team became good enough to dominate, it was much easier to dominate for longer. Consider how Real Madrid won the Champions League in 2000 with ã90 million of new players and in 2002 with another ã150 million of new players. Spending on that level just didn't happen back in the 70s and 80s and even early 90s, which is a key reason why no single club has been dominant in the Champions League era. And your point about United's treble winning side is very illuminating. Remember that United were runners up in 1998, so under the old system the best modern team at the time wouldn't even have been in the European Cup that season. And neither would Bayern Munich, who were also runners up in 1998. So the competition would have been much easier, with the two best teams that season excluded. Similarly, Real Madrid, who knocked United out in 2000, were only runners up in 1999. So again, under the old system United wouldn't have had to face Real in 2000, and thus could very well have won the Champions League that season. Under the old system, it's interesting that for the period from 1977-1983 Barcelona actually had the highest European ranking based on their performances in Europe, but were excluded from the European Cup as they performed better in Europe than in La Liga. So the European Cup at the time didn't actually include the best team in Europe. The current format may make it easier to progress to the later stages if you get a run of good form, but makes it far more difficult to consistently win, and impossible to dominate, as there are so many more teams. In particular, there are so many more teams from the top leagues, meaning that every round is difficult to call. Under the old system the makeweight teams actually made up a much larger proportion of the total teams: In 1977 Liverpool faced FC Zurich in the semi finals and won 6-1 on aggregate In 1978 Liverpool faced Benfica in the quarter finals and won 6-2 on aggregate In 1981 Liverpool faced CSKA Sofia in the quarter finals and won 6-1 on aggregate In 1984 Liverpool faced Benfica in the quarter finals and won 5-1 on aggregate Regardless of the history of the teams involved, none of those matches was even close to an even match - the opponents were vastly inferior and in the Champions League era they would have gone out in the group stage if not before. Ultimately it was much easier for the champions of a top league such as England or Italy to progress to the semi finals and not face any real opposition on the way. To win those European Cups, Liverpool generally only faced significant challenges in the last two rounds, or even in the final. They still did well to get through and win consistently, but the challenge is nowhere near as difficult as the Champions League, where you are more likely to get drawn against a top team in the second round and the quarter finals, thus having twice as many chances to be knocked out.
