Realistically I'd actually say Dalglish but that is more to do with the times. He was a quality manager in his day but he's outdated now whereas all the other managers mentioned are more modern (Fergie stayed in management and therefore moved with the times). Bit like with the footballers, knowledge make it so they will only ever get better. Of course, if you're judging them with consideration of the time they had then I'd go with Mancini. Pellegrini has had one season and won one league title, hardly poor.
mancini barely scraped to first as he lost a lead after kompany got injured. Mancini got the sack cos aguero was injured a lot and he had ros left and right and was miles and freaking miles of the worst utd team in 20 years Mancini is a nutter... pure and simple. It'd be easier rate them in order Alex Ferguson, Needles to comment why he is top. José Mourinho, won a few, is a top menatalist and will win this year. Carlo Ancelotti won a double but got sacked. if he was here longer he'd be up there.. brill manager Arsène Wenger didn't do it in last 8 so.... yeah he should be higher up Kenny Dalglish, with respect the last hoorah of a 80s breed of non scientific managers. Won it on alan shearer at his best and colin hendry. all the others have far more about them Manuel Pellegrini. One title... good manager in competitive league. could even be sacked if he doesn't win fa cup at least Roberto Mancini, nutter.... for me pelligrini's stock will only rise as when city play his way there are good. I dfind them too.... well... ordinary and lack creativity so arsneal singled out silva and kept him quiet. they need more silvas in their side.
Pellegrini is a better manager than Mancini IMO. Mancini turned the Man City dressing room into a warzone with the players he signed. Atleast Pellegrini seems to have a settled happy group of players, even if he can be naive tactically. Kenny Dalglish is without doubt the worst manager on that list, you can say Pellegrini and Mancini had lots of money at City, but they did buy good players, they didn't invest 35 million on a big target man with very little technical ability, and then get his team to play the ball into his feet He was just fortunate he had Shearer that year, and Man Utd had an off year. The guy is a tactical idiot in truth
yeah but he bought hendry, flowers, shearer, sutton et all... even tim nice but dim sherwood. He built a team over 3 years for the title... so compared to pelligrnin who walked in on having aguero already there? nah.. like i said when he won his prem he was last of a dyling lot. 2011 showed that... but he still built blackburn with jack walkers money. speaking of which i do not get the oh but he had ooodles of dosh complaining about many of thee managers cos anyone who had it spent it.
Kenny also bought Beardsley, Aldridge and Barnes to make arguably the greatest Liverpool team of all time The other thing people seem to forget is Kenny getting Newcastle to second too.
Theoretically City, with their resources, should walk it every season, with Chelsea a little way behind. Thankfully, football isn't quite as simple as that. Although money is obviously a major factor, there are clearly other variables involved. The manager is one of them, but it seems there are other things which can add up to thwart even the best manager. Fergie is obviously the best by whatever criterion you wish to judge (apart from looks and personality, obviously ) The rest are just opinion. I think Pellegrini should be doing better this season. I think Mourinho should have done better last season, but his mind games only work on those who'll let them. Mancini was the weirdest, but does that make him the worst? Pellegrini needs to do better this season or next (if he survives until then), because City's "new-found status" has been established for a few years now, and I imagine their owners believe that they should be more consistent than they've been so far.
but the liverpool stuff was before time began... you can't count that. blackburn was a serious acheivement but one done on good moeny. shearer at 3 mil yeah? prob beat utd to the man so thats why shergar is annoyed too boot. its funny how when he left blackbrun fell apart again... given the funds. the next man in was useless compare and contrast to mr mancini' legacy i suppose... once badonltelly was gone city came back strong after a only decent strt where egos had to be smashed to play pellirnin's way. we won 11 in a row or something and they still won it shows how powerful they were no overall dalglish was a dinsaur so wenger et all despite weakness for years has to be ahead of him. Finaly dalglish did complete the trio of domestic cups in 2011. I cannot think of anyone else bar feguson who's don that can you guys? Clough failed in fa cup.
yes but someone still has to manage the resources and expectations.. I think pellirni has had issues this year but they are after all after catching up to cheslea but one result and they are 5 points off... really its only down to CL being so unimpressive for me that clouds this. I'd agree pelligrini will rapidly be under pressure if he fails too.
The Premier League was of a much lower standard back then, s Do you not think the standard of the PL was a lot weaker back then than it is now though? I think with the amount of money that has come into the top sides in England the standard of the game has improved with all these foreign players now here. I think Dalglish won it in an easier era, and he was found out in his last spell with Liverpool. Particularly with the signings he made
yes.. 2nd is failure. for arsenal for 8 years 4th was acceptable. when wenger was at his prime in 2002 to 2004 really you'd say he was going to run ferguson close... not now though. prhaps he should have gone with henry and vieiria and be the legend.
Even when Wenger was in his so called prime, he was still often found out tactically in Europe. His tactics always have been the same regardless of opponent. Yesterday's win over City was the first time for a while I've seen an Arsenal team play a more tactical game.
so was ferguson... it took him many many years to learn how to get it right and even then it was keane barnstroming when you lot were being beaten that got you there.
This is a pointless argument, though. We'll fall back into the same old spat about who is better out of Ferguson and Paisley, etc etc. Were all the great managers of the past inferior because the standard was lower? What standard are we talking about anyway, if we're talking about the quality of the players then surely the managers deserve credit for getting the best out of a bad bunch? Except the opposition players would be similarly "inferior", so you could argue this until the cows come home. The reality is that this comparison has no purpose other than an excuse for rival fans to engage in yet another cock-waving competition. In any walk of life, success can only be evaluated against others of the same era.
I too think that the standard of the premiership overall have improved. Even the lowest placed teams have players who are internationals playing for a top rated nation. And the lower or mid placed teams are more difficult to beat (unless playing Chelsea and gifting them a goal in the first minute ) As for Dalglish I think he was one of the greatest players in British football. And very few great players make it as a great manager. His skills as a manager are nowhere near comparable to his playing ones and nowhere near to those of the other people on the list. His management of some tricky issues landing on his in-tray was, shall we say, less than perfect. He probably didn't attend any of the management courses which most managers nowadays have to attend. He is my "worst" manager too.
In the light of the above arguments we should define what we mean by "worst". He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine Astro meant "least deserving"- meaning the one for whom success was largely due to factors other than his intrinsic management skills. Under those circumstances, the character traits of the man are mostly irrelevant, as only behaviour having a direct bearing on his winning the PL matter. This being the case, Dalglish's dealings with personality issues don't matter (especially as they occurred in his second stint at Liverpool, when the crucial factor of winning the PL doesn't enter into it). At Blackburn he showed that he could do well with enough money in comparison to that available to others- this is neither more nor less than the ability shown by successive managers of Chelsea or City more recently. However, by the time he came back to us, the world of football management had largely left him behind.
I think football in england peaked last decade when teams were regularly in last 4 of cl. I don't think its anywhere near as strong as it was and the results show. even the italians are now competing in europe with us. In general the prem was on an upward trajectory up til 4/5 years ago and has regressed in general since. Its all about simple survival now and despite all the wads of cash for all... its just amde fatter lazier players out for a buck
I think if i went by this.......... then the least deserved title was utd's last one anchelotii's title was a great one to see and wnegers second was too... perhaps wnegers first title in 1998 was least deserved?
I know you're joking, but not really. We're talking about the manager, and imo it was Fergie who won it by managing to get his ragbag of players to outperform the rest of the (admittedly uninspiring) opposition.
