With all the recent debates people have been having about Mou and Pep and who spends what and wins what, it got me thinking, What actually constitutes being labelled as a great manager? Is it the fact that you win a load of trophies? But the counter argument to that can be that if you have the most resources in a league, and by resources I mean the best players or the most money, then you should be dominating atleast your domestic competitions more often than not. Examples of this would be Bayern and PSG. Or is being able to win the trophies whilst having considerably less resources than your rivals, like Ranieri did with Leicester, a bigger achievement than say winning 5 Bundesliga titles in a row with Bayern? Would such a manger who achieves this qualifies as having earned the right to be labelled as great? Is longevity an important barometer when it comes to managerial greatness? For instance Jose has this reputation of winning stuff but then leaving within 3 years and then going to another place and repeating the process. Is he greater than someone like SAF who stayed at the same place and won multiple trophies? Player development is another issue. How many players did a manger make from good to very good under his tutelage? Is this more important or whether the option of simply buying a world class player if you can afford him more appealing? Personally for me a manager can only truly be labelled great when he takes a team that isn't in the top echelons and then turns them into a dynasty that lasts. Sir Alex is probably the only manager whom I would label as truly great in the past 30 years or so, as he took a Utd side that was mid table level at best and turned them into this monster we are today. Sure he had plenty if resources at his disposal but he earned those. He built a foundation that led to development of players like the Class of 92 and the list of promising players he bought and turned them into world beaters is endless. Modern managers like Pep or Jose or Conte are all very good managers, but none of them are able to win without massive resources at their disposal, and even then struggle to last long. People go on about modern culture where managers can't last long at a club, well according to me its less with the culture and more with the fact that such managers aren't as great as they are made out to be. Ask yourself this question, between 1993 and 2013, how many reasons did SAF ever give for him to be sacked? The reason he lasted this long was because he was consistently successful. His longevity did not make him great, he lasted so long because he was great. Something which none of the current managers are. What are your thoughts on this? What all do you think makes a manager great and whether you agree that SAF was the last of the great managers?