Bob Paisley vs Sir Alex Ferguson

[032Devil]

I'm often confused by Liverpool fans insistence that Paisley is both a better manager and won more trophies than SAF - in fact, I was just reading another comment on The Sun website where a Dipper commented: "fergie is a legend, up there with the very best sir bob still got 2 be no1 saf 2nd"

Looking at the Wiki pages on both men, here are the stats on them:


MANAGERIAL HONOURS

PAISLEY:

- League Championship: 1975/76, 1976/77, 1978/79, 1979/80, 1981/82, 1982/83
- League Cup: 1980/81, 1981/82, 1982/83
- European Cup: 1976/77, 1977/78, 1980/81
- UEFA Cup: 1975/76
- European Super Cup: 1977/78

That's a total of 14 competitions won

FERGUSON:

IN SCOTLAND
- Scottish First Division: 1976-77 (St Mirren)
- Aberdeen (1978–1986)
- Scottish Premier Division: 1979-80, 1983-84, 1984-85
- SFA Cup: 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86
- Scottish League Cup: 1985-86
- UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1982–83
- UEFA Super Cup: 1983-84

That's a total of 12 in Scotland

IN ENGLAND (MANCHESTER UNITED)
- Premier League: 1992–93, 1993–94, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2006–07, 2007–08
- FA Cup: 1989–90, 1993–94, 1995–96, 1998–99, 2003–04
- League Cup: 1991–92, 2005–06
- UEFA Champions League: 1998–99, 2007–08
- UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1990–91
- UEFA Super Cup: 1991-92
- Intercontinental Cup: 1999

That's a total of 22* in England

As a career total Paisley has won 14 competition and Ferguson 34.



No competition or comparison really.

Exactly on what basis could Liverpool fans think that Paisley is superior to SAF?



*I have not included Charity Shields.

 

[MrMarcello]

The trophy numbers don't lie.

And anyone that uses Charity Shields as a trophy haul is a moron. Thankfully you did not.

 

[Logan!]

To be fair to Paisley, he was only at Liverpool for nine years.

I don't know enough about football during that time to know what kind of team Paisley inherited though. Fergie took an underachieving team and turned them into the biggest club on the planet and dominated the Premier League for years and continues to do so.

 

[Merman]

Many would argue that Shankly was better than Paisley. I personally think its disrespectful to the other legends to pick one as the greatest. Paisley, Shankly, Ferguson, Busby, Clough, Stein were all great and form the first tier of football managers.

 

[032Devil]

To be fair to Paisley, he was only at Liverpool for nine years.

I don't know enough about football during that time to know what kind of team Paisley inherited though. Fergie took an underachieving team and turned them into the biggest club on the planet and dominated the Premier League for years and continues to do so.

That's not really an argument. You have to judge the men on results and nothing else.

 

[McLovin]

Can't we just say that both have been outstanding.

 

[St Red]

This is a comparison that could be and probably will be discussed for a long time.
There are very valid arguments for both being the greatest, but there is no dispute who has amassed the most honours.

Stats however can and will be used to suit each argument, for example, the fact that you ommitted to mention that Ferguson has taken 34 years of football management to win his honours, whereas Paisley won all his honours in only 9 years.

 

[MrMarcello]

Stats however can and will be used to suit each argument, for example, the fact that you ommitted to mention that Ferguson has taken 34 years of football management to win his honours, whereas Paisley won all his honours in only 9 years.

And it can then be counter-argued that Paisley inherited his success while Ferguson built his from the foundation.

 

[St Red]

And it can then be counter-argued that Paisley inherited his success while Ferguson built his from the foundation.

I'm not going to argue with that point.
There are like I said, valid arguments for both men.
But no doubt 5 pages later, people will still be arguing about it.

 

[Cal?]

Sir Alex has to be considered the best manager ever in the UK, any argument to the contrary is pointless.

 

[St Red]

Some would also argue that the achievments of Jock Stein were the most remarkable.
Managed the first British team to win the European Cup, and with a team who were all brought up within a 30 mile radius of Glasgow.
He then went on to win 9 league titles in a row.

 

[topper]

Some would also argue that the achievments of Jock Stein were the most remarkable.
Managed the first British team to win the European Cup, and with a team who were all brought up within a 30 mile radius of Glasgow.
He then went on to win 9 league titles in a row.

in Scotland

 

[vijay]

Paisley inherited a strong team from Shankly and walked away with the European cups when either the competition or the competitors were mediocre. Even Fagan might have won much had he been appointed ahead of Paisley.

Fergie turned the fortunes of a sleeping giant to the biggest and most supported club in the world and won/winning trophies when the competition was more tough.

Its easy to figure out who was better.

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

Completely different era isn`t it?

I reckon managing a team today is a lot different from what it was back then. That`s a pro and a con IMO. I`m not going to say who is the better manager, just like I didn`t when we had a similar thread with Busby vs. SAF in the United forum.

 

[Paddy]

That's not really an argument. You have to judge the men on results and nothing else.

Eh? That's a very valid argument. He won 6 leagues and 3 european cups in 9 years. Obviously if he had won that same haul in 22+ years (Fergie's reign at united) it would be less impressive.

I'd say one decent point in Paisley's favour is retaining the European Cup and winning it 3 times. You know what European success means to Ferguson, and you'd have to think he's quite aware of how he stacks up to other managers in this department after having to put up with the likes of Clough reminding him over the years. (I'm ignoring any arguments on how the modern competition compares to the 70s/80s here btw, a european cup is a european cup at the end of the day)

Even so, predictably for a United fan, I'd go for Ferguson. As, I imagine, will the majority of united fans, and those (like me) who weren't around to see any of Paisley's teams are not going to be able to make much of a comparison. Which is all going to make the level of debate in this thread fairly shite.

 

[032Devil]

Eh? That's a very valid argument. He won 6 leagues and 3 european cups in 9 years. Obviously if he had won that same haul in 22+ years (Fergie's reign at united) it would be less impressive.

But he didn't. The rest is just conjecture.

In football, as in life, the only thing that matters is whose achieved the most.

I'd say one decent point in Paisley's favour is retaining the European Cup and winning it 3 times. You know what European success means to Ferguson, and you'd have to think he's quite aware of how he stacks up to other managers in this department after having to put up with the likes of Clough reminding him over the years.

True but SAF was still achieving on other fronts eg what would Liverpool give to just win one Premiership title!

Even so, predictably for a United fan, I'd go for Ferguson. As, I imagine, will the majority of united fans, and those (like me) who weren't around to see any of Paisley's teams are not going to be able to make much of a comparison. Which is all going to make the level of debate in this thread fairly shite.

 

[711]

Paisley improved Liverpool no end after he took over from Shankly.

I have always wondered how much of Shankly's success stemmed from Paisley's work in the first place.

 

[vijay]

Paisley improved Liverpool no end after he took over from Shankly.

I have always wondered how much of Shankly's success stemmed from Paisley's work in the first place.

 

[Chorley1974]

You can't really compare 9 years against 22 years, simple really.

 

[Paddy]

To be fair to Paisley, he was only at Liverpool for nine years.

That's not really an argument. You have to judge the men on results and nothing else.

Eh? That's a very valid argument. He won 6 leagues and 3 european cups in 9 years. Obviously if he had won that same haul in 22+ years (Fergie's reign at united) it would be less impressive.

But he didn't. The rest is just conjecture.

In football, as in life, the only thing that matters is whose achieved the most.

I'm genuinely confused with this conversation. The man was only manager for 9 years. He achieved a huge amount in that time. That is impressive.

I don't follow your argument that 'all that matters is whose achieved the most' at all really. Lets say a manager is at a top 4 club for five years, wins five league titles and then retires. Is he automatically worse than a manager who wins 6 league titles in 20 years at a similar level of club?

 

[Handjob Bob]

If Mourinho came in after Fergie & won 15 trophies in 9 years he would go down as a Manchester United genuine legend, but would he be regarded higher than Fergie, no way.

Jock Stein is an absolute legend, and I truly believe that he is one of the key factors that made Fergie into the manager he turned out to be. In a similar manner I hope that Fergie has had enough influence and instilled his values to at least one person who eventually grows into similar statue and manages at the pinacle of football, and it would be heaven if he (whoever it may be) could do it at Manchester United.

Call me an old romantic, but this is my dream for our club.

 

[Paddy]

True but SAF was still achieving on other fronts eg what would Liverpool give to just win one Premiership title!

For reasons that should be obvious to you Paisley couldn't have won a Premiership title. But he did win the league six times. So he was 'still achieving on other fronts'.

You can't really compare 9 years against 22 years, simple really.

You can, you just don't make it into a numbers game of trophy hauls. There are other measures of manager achievement.

 

[032Devil]

I'm genuinely confused with this conversation. The man was only manager for 9 years. He achieved a huge amount in that time. That is impressive.

I don't follow your argument that 'all that matters is whose achieved the most' at all really. Lets say a manager is at a top 4 club for five years, wins five league titles and then retires. Is he automatically worse than a manager who wins 6 league titles in 20 years at a similar level of club?

Results count and nothing else, don't they?

Dippers always argue that they've won 18 league championships; more than any other team. It's given them a sense of superiority since the 1980s.

If your arguing that Paisley winning 14 competitions in 9 years is a greater achievement than SAF winning 34 competitions in (what is it) 32 years then you could counter-argue that SAF is the only manager to win the treble therefore, he is the best manager as he has won the most in the shortest time. Of course, Dippers might argue that while we won the treble, they won 5 (mostly irrelevant) trophies.

What's more important/relevant: quantity or quality? The only thing history remembers is whose achieved the most.

 

[032Devil]

For reasons that should be obvious to you Paisley couldn't have won a Premiership title. But he did win the league six times. So he was 'still achieving on other fronts'.

Corrected.

 

[Chorley1974]

For reasons that should be obvious to you Paisley couldn't have won a Premiership title. But he did win the league six times. So he was 'still achieving on other fronts'.



You can, you just don't make it into a numbers game of trophy hauls. There are other measures of manager achievement.

The point was the original thread was mentioning overall trophy honours, so you can't compare on that basis.

To compare properly you would need a scorecard system on a number of objective and subjective elements, and more improtantly a non biased but knowledgable group of football experts*

*Which will never exist as that's the beauty of football.

 

[EricaNo7]

don't forget that liverpool weren't quite as successful since the back pass was outlawed - maybe coincidence ?

 

[Gazza]

I'm not informed enough to comment on the Paisley-Ferguson thing

But I was reading The Boss by Michael Crick the other day and it's worth emphasizing Fergie's achievements in Scotland which led to him getting the United job. Did well at St Mirren, and completely transformed Aberdeen where they actually surpassed the Old Firm while he was there.

 

[Chorley1974]

don't forget that liverpool weren't quite as successful since the back pass was outlawed - maybe coincidence ?

wtf

 

[Paddy]

If your arguing that Paisley winning 14 competitions in 9 years is a greater achievement than SAF winning 34 competitions in (what is it) 32 years

I wasn't. I just don't feel that total trophy hauls aren't the best comparison between them.

 

[Logan!]

That's not really an argument. You have to judge the men on results and nothing else.

He did acheive results. if you double the number of years he was in charge and also his trophy haul, his stats are quite comparable to Fergie. I'm not quite sure what your argument is here because basic Maths makes your post rather pointless.

Paisley: 9 years = 14 trophies ( times by two for comparison = {potentially}18 years and 28 trophies)

Fergie: 22 years = 34 trophies

So Fergie's 34 trophies beats Paisley's potential 28. but paisley is still four years down on Fergie.

Not so imcomparable after all.

 

[green demon]

Busby and Shankly were ahead of their time. They both took second-rate clubs and turned them into something special. This was at a time when resources were more limited and you couldn't just go out and buy a team like Mourinho did.

Busby created three great sides from a club that had a series of promotions and relegations in the seasons prior to the war. The ground was severly damaged by bombs and a tree was growing on the terraces. This was his starting point and shows the extent of his achievement coupled with making it a very attractive, attacking side and the best attended. The recovery of the team after Munich has been well documented although a lot of that goes down to Jimmy Murphy. After Busby's time United went into long-term decline, including another relegation, and although winning the odd cup United were rarely serious title contenders until Ferguson came and restored belief. United were so bad it took, even him, seven years to achieve it. From that point, United have not looked back.

Shankly took Liverpool from the second division and made them one of the top teams of the sixties. Although there was, like with Busby, a brief lull in trophies - Liverpool came back even stronger in the seventies with a succession of titles and unquestionably the best team in England. This led to becoming European Champions. Once this was achieved he passed the reins on to Paisley. Paisley's management career started with the best team in Europe and they were still thereabouts when he quit. Paisley took Shankly's team and made them almost unbeatable, however it was impossible for him to move too far up as they were at the top when he started.

I would say that Shankly was the better manager between himself and Paisley as he started from a much lower position, and laid the bedrock for what was to follow. Paisley would not have achieved anything like as much without Shankly's groundwork.

To compare Ferguson's management years to Paisley's makes no sense as the years managing teams like St. Mirren and even Aberdeen don't compare to inheriting the best team in Europe and not managing anywhere else.

Ferguson is clearly the top manager if trophy winning is how you calculate it, and what he did with lowly Aberdeen and even the reawakening of the sleeping giant, United, should make all true neutrals select him if there was a vote as to the greatest manager of all time.

This will sound like bias, although I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I would put Busby just ahead of Shankly for no. 2 as well. Jock Stein, Herbert Chapman and Brian Clough would be challenging Paisley for fourth spot.

 

[Denis' cuff]

Many would argue that Shankly was better than Paisley. I personally think its disrespectful to the other legends to pick one as the greatest. Paisley, Shankly, Ferguson, Busby, Clough, Stein were all great and form the first tier of football managers.

that is a good comment

Paisley improved Liverpool no end after he took over from Shankly.

I have always wondered how much of Shankly's success stemmed from Paisley's work in the first place.

He did improve them - no doubt about that. He also got them playing a more attractive brand of fotball - which wasn't hard tbf, because Shankly's teams were very workmanlike. Still, It has to be said that Shanks laid the foundations for Paisley, although it's difficult to say how much of that was actually due to Paisley.

One thing that is really understated, particularly in England, is Fergie's phenomenal achievement, against huge odds, in overhauling Rangers and Celtic with Aberdeen. Not just once or twice, but regularly and with a European trophy to boot.

 

[Alex]

He did acheive results. if you double the number of years he was in charge and also his trophy haul, his stats are quite comparable to Fergie. I'm not quite sure what your argument is here because basic Maths makes your post rather pointless.

Paisley: 9 years = 14 trophies ( times by two for comparison = {potentially}18 years and 28 trophies)

Fergie: 22 years = 34 trophies

So Fergie's 34 trophies beats Paisley's potential 28. but paisley is still four years down on Fergie.

Not so imcomparable after all.

It is comparable, Fergie 34, Paisley 14. Great managers both of them, but something has to be said for for SAF's longevity, he is the reason more than anything else responsible for what United have become today in the current world of football

 

[MUFC07]

There's another point to give to SAF.
He has seen football change, and has managed to stay in the top. 22 years. Football has changed a lot, and still, he has kept our team winning trophies and being top of the world. Built and re-built the team over and over again. Seen class legend players come and gone, arguably some of the best to ever play in England were spotted by him.

Paisley was a great manager as well, no one can't take it away from him. But what SAF has done with Mancheser United is simply unbelievable.

There hasn't been, and will hardly ever be a better manager than Sir Alex Ferguson IMO.

 

[St Red]

Liverpool came back even stronger in the seventies with a succession of titles and unquestionably the best team in England. This led to becoming European Champions. Once this was achieved he passed the reins on to Paisley. Paisley's management career started with the best team in Europe and they were still thereabouts when he quit.

You do make some good valid points, but let yourself down with this statement.

Paisley did not inherit anywhere near the best team in Europe.
He started straight away rebuilding the side that he inherited with signings like.........
McDermott
Ray Kennedy
Neal
Joey Jones
Also giving debuts to Case and Fairclough, with further important signings a couple of years later, Dalglish, Hansen, Souness to name but 3.

Granted, Liverpool had just started to win silverware after a barren spell since the mid 60's (1 league,1 FA Cup, 1 Uefa Cup), but were not the finished article and were certainly not the best team in Europe.

Ferguson is rightly plauded for re-building sides, but Paisley also had to deal with replacing players during his reign, such as Clemence, Hughes, Smith, Callaghan, Toshack, Keegan, and Heighway, so credit has to be given for that.

I didn't expect anyone on here to place Paisley above Ferguson, and probably rightly so given Fergusons longevity, ongoing success, and superior trophy haul.

But using the clearly inaccurate theory that Paisley inherited the best team in Europe as an argument to place him in a fight out for 4th best is disrespectful and shows a clear ignorance of the facts.

 

[Alex]

You do make some good valid points, but let yourself down with this statement.

Paisley did not inherit anywhere near the best team in Europe.
He started straight away rebuilding the side that he inherited with signings like.........
McDermott
Ray Kennedy
Neal
Joey Jones
Also giving debuts to Case and Fairclough, with further important signings a couple of years later, Dalglish, Hansen, Souness to name but 3.

Granted, Liverpool had just started to win silverware after a barren spell since the mid 60's (1 league,1 FA Cup, 1 Uefa Cup), but were not the finished article and were certainly not the best team in Europe.

Ferguson is rightly plauded for re-building sides, but Paisley also had to deal with replacing players during his reign, such as Clemence, Hughes, Smith, Callaghan, Toshack, Keegan, and Heighway, so credit has to be given for that.

I didn't expect anyone on here to place Paisley above Ferguson, and probably rightly so given Fergusons longevity, ongoing success, and superior trophy haul.

But using the clearly inaccurate theory that Paisley inherited the best team in Europe as an argument to place him in a fight out for 4th best is disrespectful and shows a clear ignorance of the facts.

Ferguson didnt inherit anything near the best team in England, yet there is no team that compares to United since he took over at United in England in terms of league success. If only the league winners were getting into the CL surely United would have won another won or two titles in Europe, hell who knows Porto werent to got in 03 04 and the only reason they won it was they got through on a phantom offside call

 

[mjs020294]

Paisley inherited a strong team from Shankly

BINGO

Liverpool had a good system for grooming managers. Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish both had successful stints as well. It was even fairly easy to win the European Cup back then, hence wins for Forest and Villa.

Fergy built a team to challenge the big two in Scotland, which is extremely difficult. Then he came to United and re-built the club from the ground up.


Fergy > Paisley and its not even close.

 

[Jopub]

BINGO

Liverpool had a good system for grooming managers. Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish both had successful stints as well. It was even fairly easy to win the European Cup back then, hence wins for Forest and Villa.

Fergy built a team to challenge the big two in Scotland, which is extremely difficult. Then he came to United and re-built the club from the ground up.


Fergy > Paisley and its not even close.

What a completely ridiculous argument

Again a thread turns into "my bollocks are bigger than yours" rubbish

"Fairly easy to win the European Cup ....." are you serious

Respectively Ferguson has had infinitely more money and comparitively a huge squad of player to utilise. You often back then had a core of 8/9 certs and 7 others to play what still amounted to 60 games a season ! - unlike the squads of 25 plus now

And Paisley did not have a great great side to walk into either - that's a myth

Ferguson's longevity has resulted in many more trophies

All that said I myself would put Ferguson and Paisley together but under Clough, imo the greatest manager of them all.

It matters not about the players - you still have to coax and demand and get great performances from them in the biggest of games and that requires a special kind of innate character for the job that Ferguson has in abundance

Ferguson great manager but so was Paisley

 

[Alex]

What a completely ridiculous argument

Again a thread turns into "my bollocks are bigger than yours" rubbish

"Fairly easy to win the European Cup ....." are you serious

Respectively Ferguson has had infinitely more money and comparitively a huge squad of player to utilise. You often back then had a core of 8/9 certs and 7 others to play what still amounted to 60 games a season ! - unlike the squads of 25 plus now

And Paisley did not have a great great side to walk into either - that's a myth

Ferguson's longevity has resulted in many more trophies

All that said I myself would put Ferguson and Paisley together but under Clough, imo the greatest manager of them all.

It matters not about the players - you still have to coax and demand and get great performances from them in the biggest of games and that requires a special kind of innate character for the job that Ferguson has in abundance

Ferguson great manager but so was Paisley

No one doubts that you make it sound as if Ferguson walked into United in the summer of 98

 

[redman5]

BINGO

Liverpool had a good system for grooming managers. Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish both had successful stints as well. It was even fairly easy to win the European Cup back then, hence wins for Forest and Villa.

Fergy built a team to challenge the big two in Scotland, which is extremely difficult. Then he came to United and re-built the club from the ground up.


Fergy > Paisley and its not even close.

I'm not getting involved with this Fergie v Paisley argument, as it's been done to death. But to say that the European Cup was easier to win because Forest & Villa won it, is being totally disrespectful to 2 sides that earned the right to win the competition by being champions of England. The same 'champions of England' that you guys now go on about being the true benchmark of a great team.