If SAF was still the gaffer, would he be competing with Pep/Klopp?

[Buster15]

Prime Fergie?

100%

He'd see them both off, he always did.

In fact having two world class managers at our two biggest rivals would have spurred him on to be even better.

Spot on.
If it was SAF in his prime and his best Manchester United side (pick one of many) then that would have been fun to watch.
Remember. He was able to build and rebuild teams and given similar funds to both City and Liverpool then United would have certainly given them a really tough time.
Put it this way. Liverpool would have finished a very poor third and it would have been a close run finished between us and this excellent City side.

 

[CognitiveNeuro]

Unpopular opinion but no.

I simply think Guardiola is a better manager than SAF. Getting 100 points in a season is just ridiculous. I don't think Man Utd would have ever gotten 100 points under SAF especially without a owner that splashed the cash like Man City. He's basically doing it again this season..crazy

 

[SungSam7]

One thing is for certain is that Ed would have been out of a job by now if SAF was there or SAF would have told the Glazers to shove their job.

 

[Marcelinho87]

SAF was always adapting. 'Catching the bus before it moves', in his words. We were already trying to go for technical players like Kagawa before he retired. I'm sure we'd have transitioned to a high pressing team and gotten more world class players if he were around.

I don't know if he could have outperformed this City side, but I know we'd be in the conversation for the title. And we'd still be better than Liverpool. SAF would have taken Klopp apart with his mind games.

Would love to have seen the likes of Kagawa and Zaha etc under a prime SAF.

 

[bosnian_red]

Between the time he retired and now, I think he would have won the title in 13/14, 15/16, then have a drought for a few years with Conte, Pep and now Pep/Klopp having outstanding seasons with mid-high 90s points totals while we had bigger rebuilds. Then next year we would've been up there maybe winning it and having another dominant team and competing for the CL between 2019-2022.

 

[Marcelinho87]

Unpopular opinion but no.

I simply think Guardiola is a better manager than SAF. Getting 100 points in a season is just ridiculous. I don't think Man Utd would have ever gotten 100 points under SAF especially without a owner that splashed the cash like Man City. He's basically doing it again this season..crazy

Nope.

I truly believe that the thread on Twitter about Pep and his doping habits will come out full force when he has retired and then we see the real reason behind his sides' success.

 

[11101]

I didn't say players rejected us because of Ferguson, that's not the point. The point is that even with him in charge we could never sign "anybody we wanted", for a variety of reasons.

"We were behind them because we were rebuilding" - whatever the reason, they were better. And we never matched Chelsea's consistency in 2004/05 at any time between 2006-09. Ferguson, in broad terms, wasn't really the kind of manager who achieves a 100 points in a single season - more like someone who gets into the high 80s and low 90s five times in a row. Which means he'll lose out to a competitor like Guardiola's 2017/18 Manchester City team but gets back on top the moment they decline.

What? In those 3 seasons we won the league 3 times, reached the final of the CL twice and won the League Cup, with a point variance of just 1.5 across all three. I struggle to think of a club in history that's been more consistent over a period.

City got 100 points partly because the quality in the middle of the league has declined. That team wouldn't get that total 10 years ago.

 

[Pink Moon]

No.

He was signing guys like Young, Jones, Smalling, Bebe, Buttner, Owen, Valencia, Obertan, Mame Diouf et al. His squad building was atrocious in his last few seasons and the club still hasn't recovered from it. It's painful to imagine how much worse it would've got. He left at the right time, IMO.

 

[mu4c_20le]

The question is competing. I would say yes, but thats assuming he keeps signing the right players, and not the dross and 4th and 5th choices we've had to deal with the last few years.

 

[Mastadon]

Unpopular opinion but no.

I simply think Guardiola is a better manager than SAF. Getting 100 points in a season is just ridiculous. I don't think Man Utd would have ever gotten 100 points under SAF especially without a owner that splashed the cash like Man City. He's basically doing it again this season..crazy

Look at the amount of money Utd have spent on players post SAF. He never had access to that much money imagine if all that money was spent signing players chosen by SAF.

 

[MTF]

SAF was always adapting. 'Catching the bus before it moves', in his words. We were already trying to go for technical players like Kagawa before he retired. I'm sure we'd have transitioned to a high pressing team and gotten more world class players if he were around.

I don't know if he could have outperformed this City side, but I know we'd be in the conversation for the title. And we'd still be better than Liverpool. SAF would have taken Klopp apart with his mind games.

Agree here, especially about adapting. It wouldn't be a transition to a full-on Guardiola style, but it would be generally in-tune with times and at the same time looking to outperform other top teams at elements of their game that aren't as sharp.

Also don't think it would've been about spending, and that we'd have a plethora of talented players that are instead out there in other teams and leagues. I actually think we would've ended up spending less if SAF had stayed, and some of the guys we have today and are unhappy about might be in his teams and performing well. That was always the SAF way in my mind: getting exceptional performances out of players that no one else rates very highly.

 

[Redlambs]

Was there ever a challenge that he didn't rise to?

This isn't the first time the scope of the premier league has changed.

This. Football changed a few times under his reign, and he always found a way.

Whether or not he would have this time is anyone's guess, but people who think he wasn't the master at adapting need to wobble their head

 

[RoadTrip]

Ridiculous question.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

It's important to remember that Klopp has won as many trophies with Liverpool since arriving in 2015 as Fergie has with United in that time and Fergie retired 2 and a half years before Klopp arrived at anfield

 

[PGLFC91]

Impossible to know.

He took over United in the 80's and left them as title winners in 2013. Football obviously changed in that period and he adapted so I don't see why he would not have adapted to football in 2019.

Klopp has done very well but has won nothing yet so he is not the benchmark but what Pep is about to achieve is unprecedented.

100 points followed by 98. Ferguson won league titles with much less but always came back to beat managers who got on top for a period.

First it was Wenger. Then Mourinho won two in a row and then City and he beat them all.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I think if they were all the same age, were given identical teams and then left to their own devices he'd probably start off at the bottom of the three and then slowly grind his way to being the best.

After 5 years IMO he'd be absolutely dominant, waiting for the next challenge.

 

[DeGea]

Ridiculous question.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

If you think the answer is that unequivocal, you clearly have not been paying attention..

 

[Castia]

Yes.

He wouldn't have spunked £500m on shite.

 

[marktan]

Staggered by the downplaying of SAF in here, our 07-08 team would've beaten this City side imo. Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez up front.. Scholes Carrick Hargreaves behind.. Evra, Vidic, Rio, Brown, VDS in defence..

People talk about the 2 CL finals.. but our 08-09 team was weaker than the 07-08 final team, and the 11-12 team was just average. Pep caught us on the decline with a prime Messi, his achievement wasn't that good considering he shouldn't have even been in the 08-09 final (the Chelsea semi) and the teams were weaker then. He's strugged in Europe ever since.

If SAF was 20 years younger, he would've built another great team by now. The man's a born winner.

 

[RobinLFC]

It's important to remember that Klopp has won as many trophies with Liverpool since arriving in 2015 as Fergie has with United in that time and Fergie retired 2 and a half years before Klopp arrived at anfield

Lies!

Spoiler

 

[marktan]

No.

He was signing guys like Young, Jones, Smalling, Bebe, Buttner, Owen, Valencia, Obertan, Mame Diouf et al. His squad building was atrocious in his last few seasons and the club still hasn't recovered from it. It's painful to imagine how much worse it would've got. He left at the right time, IMO.

Majority of those were low-cost signings, he clearly wasn't spending much in his later years. Whether due to the Glazers and the debt or just because he didn't want to, I don't know.

But he also signed players like De Gea, Van Persie, Zaha.. and had players like Nani, Rafael etc in their prime. Make him 10 years younger and give him the money we've spent since he's retired we'd be easily be challenging for the league. The guy built the 07-08 team and half of that team cost less then £10m each.

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

Lies!

Spoiler

Oh how could I forget that monumental victory, the one that Fergie missed out on and no doubt keeps him awake at night

 

[Morpheus 7]

He would be rebuilding much better for sure. It's a near impossible question considering his lack of investment in the later years. Would the Glazers be giving him the opportunity to spend as big, impossible to answer. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in now either. Find it hard to believe he wouldn't have won more trophies.

 

[billybee99]

Yes.

And some of the players from the top 6 would have signed for us instead. In the terms of evolution / marathon, He's always the king.

This. People always look at these things in a vacuum with zero context as if everything is static and nothing would have changed. Maybe SAF would have signed Mane and VVD instead of Liverpool. Maybe we have Kroos instead of Pogba. Maybe Bale decides to come to United instead of Madrid. Maybe Ronaldo returns to United after some frustrating years in Madrid (without Kroos and Bale, maybe Madrid don't win 4 UCLs). Maybe SAF signs Harry Kane two years ago and he's banging in 30 league goals per season. Maybe Baldy decides to stay in Munich. There is no way to know what would have happened. But one thing is for sure - Fergie always competed for the top spot; we have 30 years of evidence of this including his final year at the age of 71 where he took down City who were spending boat loads of cash as they are now. I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't still be winning titles and going head to head at the top of the table.

 

[RoadTrip]

If you think the answer is that unequivocal, you clearly have not been paying attention..

It is unequivocal. I don’t care what anyone else says.

If SAF was in charge, he would only be so if he was physically and mentally in a position to be.

If you’re asking the question whether given his health concerns and what not since he retired, he’d still be competing, then it’s an even more ridiculous question.

 

[RoadTrip]

Lies!

Spoiler

 

[Siorac]

What? In those 3 seasons we won the league 3 times, reached the final of the CL twice and won the League Cup, with a point variance of just 1.5 across all three. I struggle to think of a club in history that's been more consistent over a period.

City got 100 points partly because the quality in the middle of the league has declined. That team wouldn't get that total 10 years ago.

We won three in a row with totals of 89, 87 and 90. Chelsea got 95 on 2004/05, that's what I'm referring to. They had an outstanding league campaign, with the sort of consistency that Fergie teams didn't manage during a single season. He was the master of being consistent over several campaigns which is different.

And I don't think the middle of the league has declined since then. Rather the opposite actually.

 

[Hellboy]

Unpopular opinion but no.

I simply think Guardiola is a better manager than SAF. Getting 100 points in a season is just ridiculous. I don't think Man Utd would have ever gotten 100 points under SAF especially without a owner that splashed the cash like Man City. He's basically doing it again this season..crazy

Better coach than SAF maybe. But better manager ? You're having a laugh.

Fergie saw off EVERY rival in his tenure at United and it's highly likely he would have been capable of rivaling with Klopp/Guardiola.

 

[Pughnichi]

We’d have a more mature and developed Zaha tearing it up at RW for us

 

[Foxbatt]

The simple facts are there to see. How many apart from David DeGea from this team or the teams after SAF left is going to get into any side of SAF?
Zlatan at his peak but not the semi retired Zlatan at United.
So it's also the quality of the players and not only the Manager. I would say he will be there among the best because he is also going to buy the best players.

 

[Sir Scott McToMinay]

That depends on the team and the players he would have to work with.
With the current squad? not a chance.
But if he had a squad of players rivaling City or Liverpool in quality then absolutely.
SAF was a remarkable league manager.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Yes.

100% definitely will dominate the league only if he gets fired up and back to his best. Prime SAF (06 to 09) is a monster.

If not, then about 60+% league win, he'll make sure we'll maintain being a strong challenger team to Klopp's and Pep's teams.
For sure way better than what his 4 successors can do.

Idk, but SAF last 2 to 4 seasons is seemingly going downwards, in many aspects of his management eg. transfers dealings, football entertainment value, squad refreshments, etc. But hey he can still pull magics in those seasons, I mean the squad is still a winning mentality machine using many average players at that and declining WC and elite players, so that's really amazing.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think he got out at the right time.

He "reinvented" his approach to how to win games many times. If he/coaching staff was able to see that possession/high press was the way going forward and they were able to get the team to adapt and play like this, then he could have competed.

 

[spaceboyRSA]

Prime Fergie. No doubt. We may not have always won every year, but we would have been competing and would have won a hell of a lot more than the last few years.

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

So now it's not the players but it's the manager?

 

[The Brown Bull]

No doubt in the world about it.Alex would have found a way to compete.The limp dick performances of the last 6 weeks wouldn’t be tolerated.

 

[Rojofiam]

I'm not sure about the last 2 years, but I think we would've won the title in 2014, 2016 and it would've been a very close race vs Chelsea in 2015 and 2017.

 

[Maverick red]

You could never bet against him, i actually thought the title winning days were gone back in 2005, that chelsea side was so good, but saf turned it around, with the money given to van gaal and Mourinho, yeah we would be right up there.

 

[DickDastardly]

He wouldn't have Pogba in his team that's for sure.

There would be boots flying to ppls faces in away dressing rooms...

 

[WYRM]

For medical and age reasons, no. As a 77 year old, he couldn't stand the stressfulness of the job.

But for tactical and coaching reasons alone, yes, of course. One of SAF's biggest strengths was his ability to adapt to new styles and tactics of the game. Do you remember when Mourinho dominated at Chelsea with his 4-3-3 formation? Admittedly, took SAF some time, but in the end he adapted and formed arguably one of our best squads of all time in the latter 00's.

I have zero doubt that if you miraculously made SAF 15 years younger, he'd be right up there with Guardiola and Klopp (imo, surpassing both of them).