Was Sir Alex a tactical dinosaur? I Poll Added

[K2K]

Having seen multiple comments about how LVG is modernizing our football and how this will take time(Id rather not quote anyone), and seeing as SAF was our last serious manager in terms of influence, do you think that SAF had failed to move with the times which has resulted in us needed this sudden influx of modernization?

This a question simply about the tactics that SAF used especially near the end of his tenure and should not drift to other aspects of his management style.

 

[Nighteyes]

No.

He was superb tactically.

 

[kouroux]

He showed his tactical aptitude in Europe, Cakir prevented his team from reaching the SF in his last season.

 

[Everest Red]

No. There's a quote from Cryuff(while he was managing) about how Fergie was a shrewd and underrated tactician.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Just look at his use of Park Ji Sung over the years. He was an underrated tactician.

 

[11101]

No, but he was every bit as stubborn as LVG is, and i think thats where people are getting mixed up. He flatly refused to change his style of play even when we started to get turned over in Europe by possession football, but that doesnt mean his style was outdated or his tactics poor. He made some real masterstrokes in his tenure.

LVG also has his style and wont budge. Who can argue with them, as two of the most successful managers in the history of the sport?

 

[Mindhunter]

Who cares when he was winning trophies every season playing attacking football without employing "modern tactics"?

In fact, nowadays there is too much emphasis on style and philosophy and yada yada but not enough on winning. Either football styles are cyclical as well so no reason to call a particular style modern or obsolete.

 

[Sky1981]

Simple tactics made to work by perfection. There's many ways to play football, and at the end of the day every tactics can work if you work it out to perfection.

Pep's a class Wushu manager, fancy beautiful moves, SAF is just a street brawler, and a fecking good one. Both can kill, both can be beautiful to watch. SAF built his team perfectly to suit his brawler's philosophy, any other manager trying to attempt to make a Wushu athelete out of brawler will be disappointed (LVG).

 

[holyland red]

Who cares when he was winning trophies every season playing attacking football without employing "modern tactics"?

In fact, nowadays there is too much emphasis on style and philosophy and yada yada but not enough on winning. Either football styles are cyclical as well so no reason to call a particular style modern or obsolete.

This. He was winning leagues for fun. Fergie is often criticized for his "lack of success" in Europe, but the CL is a cup competition no matter how glorified it is. There's a huge element of luck separating QFs, SFs and actually winning that trophy, and a good number of examples for triumphs hailed as tactical genius being nothing more than mere flukes.

 

[Loublaze]

Queiroz made him consider more 'modern' tactics, like switching to 4-3-3 for instance. Fergie was good at what he did, but no other manager can try to duplicate his blueprint and expect the same results in this modern era (Giggs are you watching?)

 

[KM]

A manager as successful as Fergie can't be ever called a tactical dinosaur. Just because we played with two out and out wingers doesn't mean he was outdated.

 

[reelworld]

that 2007-2008 team was a very continental team I think. I think he just doesn't have the players to play that style anymore. Some of it is the result of his own fault though

 

[ghagua]

Don't care if he was a tactical dinosaur, what counts is he managed to get the players to go through a brick wall for him. His teams usually never gave up, and played to the last whistle. That is the reason why he won so many trophies.

 

[Rednotdead]

If what Van Gaal is doing is "modernisation" I'll take Fergie's methods over that anytime - tactician or not.

 

[United again!]

No.

 

[FC Ronaldo]

At times he had flaws tactically (Dortmund, Leverkusen, Bilbao, Bayern in the one where Robben knocked us out etc) but on the whole, what he lacked in tactical fluidity he made up for in his allowance for players to express themselves and play with attacking verve and creativity within those frameworks.

In many of our losses and European exits where perhaps he was naive tactically or called it wrong, the players had more than enough great opportunities to correct that. So as a whole review, it's not fair to categorise him as a tactical dinosaur entirely. Besides, his sample size is freaking huge to look at. Of course he's gonna drop a clanger or 2 in amongst the thousands and thousands of matches.

The older he got, the wiser he got too though on the whole. Real Madrid for example - away we should have won, no doubt, van Persie wasted countless chances. At home, Welbeck ran them ragged and Nani's red turned the tie.

 

[Kag]

No. That he adapted to the recurring changes in football over a period of 30+ years while maintaining constant title success is evidence enough of his unparalleled ability to move on with the times. It was perhaps his biggest strength.

However, that doesn't escape the glaring issues on the pitch during the last few years of his reign. We couldn't press, we were taken apart by teams that could press and we weren't very organised from back to front. These issues were prominent, obvious and our more recent struggles under new coaches doesn't negate that.

Part of that was to do with the personnel in midfield. Give Ferguson the midfield we have right now and he'd have made phenomenal use of it.

No tactical dinosaur in the slightest, but a sentimental one, perhaps.

 

[Revan]

Of course no. You cannot be the best manager ever if you are a dinosaur in one of the most important aspects of the game.

I wouldn't say that tactics were his strongest point (man management and will to win were Fergie's strongest points IMO), but he was definitely a very good tactician. Especially in his last few years when he cracked UCL.

 

[United again!]

Pep's a class Wushu manager, fancy beautiful moves, SAF is just a street brawler, and a fecking good one. Both can kill, both can be beautiful to watch. SAF built his team perfectly to suit his brawler's philosophy, any other manager trying to attempt to make a Wushu athelete out of brawler will be disappointed (LVG).

Well put, to further expand on that. The premier league is a series of 38 bar room brawls. You bring a nice selection of 120kg bikies who love a good rumble, put your prize strike fighters in the mix with them. Sometimes you can't field a whole team of 60kg martial arts experts and then complain after you get your arse handed to you that they smashed pints over your head, threw furniture and dual wielded pool cues.

 

[Sereques]

Yes SAF was very succesful in premier league, but the things that happen in Europe was scary for the manager of his calibre. Case point, The final in Rome against Barca.

Our tactics was to put CR7 on Pique a defender we considered slow and that wasn't meant to be. And we were outdone by pep who moved Etoo to the wings and Messi played a central role. We spent our enitre week prepping for Messi on the right against Evra.

It's a bit naive and embarrassing if our ace in the hole in an Europe Cup final was to outrun a CB.

 

[NoLogo]

Well he was a bit old fashioned in his style. Deep standing defence, no pressing and a more direct style of passing. That being said I still hold firm to the believe that there is no "correct way" to play football, there are trends that come and go in waves. Everything we think of as modern football these days has already been there, the pressing, the fast transitions and the compactness of teams trying to move as a unit, it's all been done before and just coming back with minor modifications.

Maybe his training methods were a bit more British and focused on the physical side of things whereas training under LvG and his dutch coaches is much more focused on the technical and tactical aspects which one could consider as a more progressive and modern approach probably.

But people also forgot that under Fergie we played in a variety of shapes, not just the 4-4-2 and he was an absolute master in using utility players for specific jobs he wanted get done on the field, which often lead to us fans flipping our shit when we saw the selection but as the trophy collection suggests it worked pretty well throughout most years.

 

[Anderson's Cat]

I miss Fergie

 

[RedDevil@84]

I miss Fergie

Most people do. But a manager cant be forever.
The club needs to move on. New managers, new styles are inevitable.

 

[wiz4231]

Fergie was simply a winner.

 

[Anderson's Cat]

Most people do. But a manager cant be forever.
The club needs to move on. New managers, new styles are inevitable.

Thanks Mom

 

[Cooksen]

He was below some managers for tactics but his motivational skills and way with words was his real strength.

 

[2 man midfield]

Thanks Mom

 

[Sereques]

He was below some managers for tactics but his motivational skills and way with words was his real strength.

This

 

[Keeps It tidy]

This might not be tactics but, no one came close to him when it comes to managing the squad. No one even tries to rotate as much as he did.

 

[Brwned]

The team in 2008 was one of the most tactically versatile and innovative teams in modern European history. His final team was light years behind that though. No fluidity, no cohesion, carried by individuals, filled with players on their last legs who couldn't cope with the modern pressing game and supported by young players who looked extremely naive tactically.

 

[holyland red]

Thanks Mom

 

[Adam-Utd]

He was a master of winning the league over a number of months but arguably struggled in the cup competitions, maybe because our squad was averagely strong rather than an amazing first team.

Arguably we were nieve going into Wembley against barca with 2 strikers, we never stood a chance like that.

Overall though he did us pretty well over years I would say, you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

 

[Seveneric]

According to users on redcafe yes. He was a tactical dinosaur, transfer dinosaur, style of play dinosaur(possession football is the future everyone1!!11), youth football dinosaur since 2008. Glad United now have the much more competent Van Gaal to put things right.

 

[2mufc0]

Would love to have this so called tactical dinasour back now.

 

[Ish]

SAF was a brilliant tactician but an even better motivator and man manager. People look at all these brilliant "tacticians" around - and they'll list
Pep, Klopp, even Rafa/Mou. But in the end, most of them have their preferred playing style 99% of the time, similar to SAF, though his was just 4-4-2 with 2 wide attacking wingers.

Football has since changed a bit with 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 being the dominant formations but SAF was equally flexible, proven with our brilliant European record from around 07/08 - 10/11.

He should have done better in Europe though. Though there's so much luck involved, plus that formidable Barca team .

But yeah, you can't be a shit tactician and be one of the all time greats IMO.

 

[arthurka]

Might be tactically naive but a motivational genius.. I MISS HIM.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Thanks Mom

 

[crimsonife]

Tactical dinosaur would indicate not winning with your tactics. Which Fergie was not. His methods were direct but they still worked.

 

[Ramshock]

Fergie wouldn't have actually been the best tactician ever but he wasn't a slouch either. Especially at reading a game or preparing for a game by changing things up. But he was so good at man management he really didnt need to be the greatest tactician ever. I think this thread will devolve into another LVG bitchfest though.

 

[Hed Zitin]

He played trophy winning football and that is all that matters.