Fergie has only been gone a couple of seasons though, the league hasn't changed that much since then. Half the reason the league appears more competitive since he left is simply because he isn't around anymore. Under Fergie we set a high standard most seasons, and it was hard enough for 1 team to keep tabs on us never mind 3 or 4 teams. So yeah it often did develop into a 2 horse race most years, but that was largely down to the fact Fergies sides where to consistent over 38 games for 3 or 4 sides to stay competitive with. City look the top side this season but you look at some of the silly points they have dropped so far, none more so than the draw against bottom of the table Villa. Fergie had this knack of making sure his teams where bang on it in every game, so silly points weren't dropped. A Fergie led United side would make mince meat of this lot this season. Arsenal now find themselves as serious title contenders, but it's more to do with the fact the other top sides have come down to there level, rather than Arsenal improving loads. I think the standard it takes to win the Premier League has certainly dropped, and that's largely due to the fact Fergie isn't around to keep the bar high. You say that the performances have improved, yeah you played better against Stoke, but the Liverpool game before that was arguably your worst performance in years, especially in that 2nd half. So i think it's still going to take a lot to turn this round. There doesn't appear to be any leaders in the team currently, but then again that's a squad of players who ground out victory after victory whilst not playing at their best in the 2nd half of last season, so there must be some leaders in there. Ivanovic, Cahill, Costa, Fabregas, Matic? These are big players with alot of experience who should be offering more. So I'm not convinced it's a case that you have no leaders, as you wouldn't have won the title last season
No doubt someone will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I don't think Fergie set that high a standard. The year you won the treble you reached 79 points so he must have been dropping a fair few points somewhere. 79 points would have got you 4/5th 2 years ago and 2nd/3rd last year. Fact is, Fergie was a great manager but for the first 10 years or so after he won the league in 94, you had very little competition in reality. When Chelsea came along you then went 3 years without a title. To his credit he then won a few more of course. But if he was starting out now, in this era, he'd never win as many titles as he did and would have likely had some periods of difficulty. I think he left at the right time for his legacy as the United team he left needed a major overhaul.
A lot of the reason the points total wasn't that high back in 99 was largely due to the fact teams in those days didn't have the squads that they do now, and we where fighting on 3 fronts right throughout the season. That was 16 years ago now though, I'm talking about even more recent titles. Fergie would still dominate these days, as even when Chelsea's money came along we still won more titles than everyone else combined. Since you won your first title to Fergies retirement, we won 5 titles, you won 3 and City won 1. This was despite Fergie having a much lower net spend than your team, and City's who came on the scene later on. So I'm not sure how you can say he'd struggle nowadays. I also don't understand how the PL only became competitive when Chelsea come on the scene, that's complete nonsense. Fergie built us up from an average side to the side we became in the 90s, it wasn't like he was handed the top side in the country. The reason we where so dominant was all his work
You've backed up my point for me. The reason Fergie was pistol whipping the average sides every week was as you say, that they didn't have the squads they do now. It was much easier for a high spending club like United to dominate in the 90's with limited competition and buying other teams' best players. Much like Munich in Germany nowadays. There will always be other sides that have good spells but couldn't compete consistently. Again, Fergie was great but was very fortunate to have been given time, have an amazing youth team all come through at once and he was consistently outspending everyone until we came along. If you look at title races during that period it was often United plus 1. It was shortly after Chelsea started to compete that the whole top 4 thing became so prevalent with United, Chelsea and Arsenal all very competitive and Liverpool a very good side as well. Then City came along and even Everton/Spurs and suddenly you have half a dozen really good sides. Fergie would still win titles but not to the same extent now City in particular are more established and others such as Arsenal can spend big now as well.
We hadn't won the title since 1967 when Fergie was appointed manager, and we only had 7 to our name so using the Bayern Munich analogy is wrong, as we weren't the big dog of English football back then. Teams like Liverpool, Leeds and Arsenal where the top sides who where winning titles back then. Fergie didn't out spend these clubs initially when he first took charge of United, he had to work his arse off for years to build us up into a position where we had more financial power than the competition. You make out as if he was just handed millions and millions of pounds to spend like Mourinho was at Chelsea, but Fergie himself built the club up into a side that could spend a lot. At the end of the day the reason we had a lot of money was down to his good management of the side over many years. As far as him getting lucky with the youth development, why do you persist in saying this? He didn't get lucky, it was his work that built up the youth system. When he joined the first thing he did was revamp the academy and hire more scouts. And in the cases of Giggs and Beckham he personally went round to their family homes and persuaded them to join us rather than other clubs. So it was never a case of luck, as the class of 92 would never have come through our academy had we had another manager in charge. You also have to remember that Fergie had the balls to sell half of his established first team and throw those kids in at the deep end, with all the media claiming he was mad. Not many managers would show the faith in youth that he did, and it payed off big time for him, especially when all those players where in his treble winning side. If Fergie was around these days with the resources LVG has been given the title race would be a precession most seasons, the only reason Chelsea and City competed with United at the end of Fergies reign was down to having bigger finances, and even then Fergie still won the League more than both combined. Imagine if Fergie was allowed to spend 200+ million like LVG has been, and outspend all his rivals, it wouldnt even be a worthwhile contest
They would be the current leaders but again they're nowhere near the level of the names I listed. Whenever Ivanovic played on his own as Captain he looked lost!
To be honest, can't be arsed going round and round arguing about a manager now retired when this thread is about a current manager's plight. I can only say Fergie was great so many times, just not as damn brilliant and without question as some like to suggest. If the class of 92 was all his doing and not partly fortune, why was it never remotely replicated thereafter? The more recent players he brought through the youth team were the likes of Cleverley and Welbeck i.e average despite having even longer to hone the youth setup. And the best youth product he had for 20 years he let go for nothing.
