'Pep' Guardiola sack watch

big rons sovereign

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
2,665
You’re having a ‘mare.

The wiki entry for La Liga conveniently lists the Champions since 2010:

Barca - 7
Real - 3
Athletico - 2

And Zidane won two of those leagues for Real. La Liga isn’t a two-horse race. And even if it was, that doesn’t mean he had a 50% chance of winning - that’s not how that works.

This thread is awesome. Accomplishments apparently don’t count if:

You spend money
Have good players
Manage a team that has won the title in the last ten years

I thought deriding Pep because he’s won only two Champions Leagues was odd. Now it’s not that impressive to win it three times on the trot - something literally no other manager has even come close to. Because he had good players?!?
———
Schmeichel
van der Saar

Stam
Ferdinand
Vidic

Beckham
Scholes
Keane
Giggs

Rooney
Ronaldo
———
Ferguson’s two Champions League wins featured some of the finest players I’ve seen during my lifetime. Many of them bought for giant transfer fees (Ferdinand at £30m would be over Maguire’s £80 in today’s prices). Do those trophies not count?

This is the thread that keeps on giving.
Many of them? 2 of them were bought for large fees.
The rest are academy or absolute bargains.
 

Daydreamer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24
Supports
Arsenal
Which is more impressive, Pep winning it twice with the greatest Barca team in the history, or Mourinho with Porto and Inter?
Mourinho of course. Although, as mentioned, he had a pretty easy run with Porto and had a damn good Inter team.

Guardiola’s achievement is in developing the greatest ever team. Many of his actions look obvious with the benefit of hindsight because it worked so well:

Outgoing
Ronaldinho
Deco
Zambrotta

Incoming
Pique
Alves
Busquets

Those are not obvious moves. Having great players means nothing if you don’t have the bravery to make space for them. After all Mourinho had:

de Bruyne
Salah
Lukaku

And sold them all.

Even if a hypothetical coach made all the same recruitment decisions as Pep, that still doesn’t mean he would produce such a dominant side. For example, the following is quite plausible:

Pep’s Barca 08/09 XI

Henry Eto’o Messi
Iniesta Busquets Xavi
Sylvinho Pique Puyol Alves
Valdez


Mourinho’s Barca 08/09 XI

Henry
IniestaMessi Eto’o
Busquets Xavi
Sylvinho Pique Puyol Alves
Valdez​

In subsequent years we would likely never have seen:
  • Messi as a False 9​
  • Centre backs practically hugging the touch line in the buildup​
  • Busquets dropping between his defenders to be a playmaker​
  • Midfielders routinely playing in defence​
  • Alves pinning opposition wingers and fullbacks upfield with his positioning​
  • A solid defence based on insanely high possession rates​
We’ve seen this in our own league. David Silva and Kevin de Bruyne would almost certainly have been used as wingers or 10s by any other coach in order to fit them in to the same team. Pep played the as 8s in the centre of the pitch. To this very day, Ole can’t make Bruno and Pogba work in a 3 man midfield.

Managers do more than select who plays. I would think that’s obvious, seeing as United had one of - if not the - greatest Managers of all time. Pep is paid £20m a year and his arrival had been prepared for years in advance. Why bother if any decent coach would do?
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
287
Supports
No team in particular
Kind of funny this. You're vehemently defending Pep from those to try to take away from his achievements, then you make this post. Ironic, one might call it.
Did i say anything that's wrong? Didn't Inter Milan have world-class players? Didn't Porto have very good players? Did i say that Mourinho wasn't a great coach and didn't play a big role in the victory of those teams?

I was just saying that the narrative that some are trying to sell that Mourinho carried teams with barely average player to the CL final isn't true, that doesn't take anything away from his achievements.
 

Daydreamer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24
Supports
Arsenal
Many of them? 2 of them were bought for large fees.
The rest are academy or absolute bargains.
I mean, Jaap Stam was £15m in 98 and Ronaldo was £17m in 2003. Those were serious fees . And Ferguson broke the British transfer record seven times.

But that wasn’t actually my point. Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets, Pique, Puyol etc were all from La Masia. But that seems to invalidate his Champions League wins. Zidane had a 1st XI comprised mainly of expensive recruits. And that seems to invalidate his wins.

Yet Ferguson’s success came from the same sources - and that’s perfectly legitimate.

The best Coaches go to the biggest clubs where they get to work with the best players - either through having the best academy, the best scouts or the best transfer windows due to having the highest budgets.

It’s true of literally every Manager in the last thirty years. When they achieve a miracle for one or two years they move to a larger club so that don’t have to produce miracles every year.

Winning the first six completions you play in or the first three Champion Leagues you compete in (plus a couple league titles) are literally unprecedented successes.

I think what keeps pulling me back into this thread is the idea that I’m being trolled. I’m not even a Pep or Zidane fan. Barca stole Henry, Bayern destroyed us year after year, City bought a load of our players and inflated the market and Real are playing hardball over Odegaard.

But you can still recognise obviously impressive managerial achievements that take place in front of your eyes. Right?
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,257
I mean, Jaap Stam was £15m in 98 and Ronaldo was £17m in 2003. Those were serious fees . And Ferguson broke the British transfer record seven times.
Except Jaap Stam was £10.6m and Ronaldo was £12m. Only Stam was particularly expensive at the time.
 

Daydreamer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24
Supports
Arsenal
Except Jaap Stam was £10.6m and Ronaldo was £12m. Only Stam was particularly expensive at the time.
I took the figures from Transfermarkt, they usually pretty good. They may include add-ons which both players likely achieved seeing as they were huge successes.


I love the making up numbers game.
It takes me back to the Lukaku transfer.
I’ve got no reason to make up numbers.



Plus we sold Becks for £25 million in the same season.
I wasn’t making a point about United’s net spend or quality of Ferguson’s work in the transfer market at that time (which was excellent btw)


I’ll probably summarise and bow out of the thread with this reply as the arguments are pretty circular:

During the period when Ferguson won the bulk of his United trophies (pre-Abramovic Premier League era) he:
  1. Inherited wonderful players from his academy
  2. Massively outspent his domestic rivals
The fact that the majority of his success coincides with this is held to be immaterial. Pep benefited hugely from Barca’s academy. And Zidane reaped the rewards of Madrid’s spending. I (and fans that tend to be rivals) don’t see the massive difference.

Maybe it stems from being an Arsenal fan. Due to our self-sustaining model, we’ve never had the most resources in the league during my lifetime. So whether the source is commercial acumen and good timing (United/Barca/Bayern), billionaire backers (Chelsea/Milan), state sponsorship (City / PSG), or all of the above (Real Madrid) - it all seems like an uneven playing field to me. One that puts us at a disadvantage to those above us and an advantage to those below us.

That’s football. Bashing Pep and Zidane because they maximised the resources they had available to them seems really odd on a United forum considering how Ferguson ruthlessly pressed home his advantages to great effect and is (rightly) feted for it.
 

fergies coat

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
1,718
Location
Wythenshawe, Manchester
I took the figures from Transfermarkt, they usually pretty good. They may include add-ons which both players likely achieved seeing as they were huge successes.




I’ve got no reason to make up numbers.





I wasn’t making a point about United’s net spend or quality of Ferguson’s work in the transfer market at that time (which was excellent btw)


I’ll probably summarise and bow out of the thread with this reply as the arguments are pretty circular:

During the period when Ferguson won the bulk of his United trophies (pre-Abramovic Premier League era) he:
  1. Inherited wonderful players from his academy
  2. Massively outspent his domestic rivals
The fact that the majority of his success coincides with this is held to be immaterial. Pep benefited hugely from Barca’s academy. And Zidane reaped the rewards of Madrid’s spending. I (and fans that tend to be rivals) don’t see the massive difference.

Maybe it stems from being an Arsenal fan. Due to our self-sustaining model, we’ve never had the most resources in the league during my lifetime. So whether the source is commercial acumen and good timing (United/Barca/Bayern), billionaire backers (Chelsea/Milan), state sponsorship (City / PSG), or all of the above (Real Madrid) - it all seems like an uneven playing field to me. One that puts us at a disadvantage to those above us and an advantage to those below us.

That’s football. Bashing Pep and Zidane because they maximised the resources they had available to them seems really odd on a United forum considering how Ferguson ruthlessly pressed home his advantages to great effect and is (rightly) feted for it.
He didn't just benefit from the academy, he helped it become what it became, and no we did not massively out spend our rivals. Liverpool spent more than us in the 90s. Blackburn and Newcastle out spent us in most part of the 90s. So let's not compare Pep to sir Alex.

I already put up a spending chart on here last week. Alex ferguson was the highest spending manager in the league in only 3 seasons ever, so to say he massively out spent his rivals are just lies.
 
Last edited:

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,257
I took the figures from Transfermarkt, they usually pretty good. They may include add-ons which both players likely achieved seeing as they were huge successes.
They quite often confuse Euros with pounds I think. Being around at the time helps.
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
37,441
Location
Egypt
Mourinho of course. Although, as mentioned, he had a pretty easy run with Porto and had a damn good Inter team.

Guardiola’s achievement is in developing the greatest ever team. Many of his actions look obvious with the benefit of hindsight because it worked so well:

Outgoing
Ronaldinho
Deco
Zambrotta

Incoming
Pique
Alves
Busquets

Those are not obvious moves. Having great players means nothing if you don’t have the bravery to make space for them. After all Mourinho had:

de Bruyne
Salah
Lukaku

And sold them all.

Even if a hypothetical coach made all the same recruitment decisions as Pep, that still doesn’t mean he would produce such a dominant side. For example, the following is quite plausible:

Pep’s Barca 08/09 XI

Henry Eto’o Messi
Iniesta Busquets Xavi
Sylvinho Pique Puyol Alves
Valdez


Mourinho’s Barca 08/09 XI

Henry
IniestaMessi Eto’o
Busquets Xavi
Sylvinho Pique Puyol Alves
Valdez​

In subsequent years we would likely never have seen:
  • Messi as a False 9​
  • Centre backs practically hugging the touch line in the buildup​
  • Busquets dropping between his defenders to be a playmaker​
  • Midfielders routinely playing in defence​
  • Alves pinning opposition wingers and fullbacks upfield with his positioning​
  • A solid defence based on insanely high possession rates​
We’ve seen this in our own league. David Silva and Kevin de Bruyne would almost certainly have been used as wingers or 10s by any other coach in order to fit them in to the same team. Pep played the as 8s in the centre of the pitch. To this very day, Ole can’t make Bruno and Pogba work in a 3 man midfield.

Managers do more than select who plays. I would think that’s obvious, seeing as United had one of - if not the - greatest Managers of all time. Pep is paid £20m a year and his arrival had been prepared for years in advance. Why bother if any decent coach would do?
I agree on Pep's point, but actually Mourinho also rebuilt his Inter team in 2009 summer. Almost all of his signings in this summer were major part of the team who won the treble :

https://www.transfermarkt.com/inter-mailand/transfers/verein/46/saison_id/2009
 

Daydreamer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24
Supports
Arsenal
This blatantly isn’t true.
You’re right, let me rephrase. You routinely outspent your closest domestic competition, Arsenal, from Wenger’s arrival until Chelsea’s first title . You’re correct in saying there was quite a bit of spending from teams who somehow managed to not challenge for the title for the most part.


They quite often confuse Euros with pounds I think. Being around at the time helps.
As a 35 year old... unfortunately I was.
 

SeeMe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
104
Supports
Porto
People keep comparing Pep with the greatest SAF or Klopp, I think we can not compare in this way due to different era, different resources and different clubs too.

Let's compare Pep in other aspects like;
1) League competitiveness
Pep - 7/10 The time Pep in charged of Barcelona and Bayern, sorry to say that they were 2 teams / 1 team league.
SAF - 8/10 SAF era PL were much more simple, Arsenal & Man United and later Chelsea, oil money hasn't fueled in.
Klopp - 9/10 Dortmund & Liverpool.

2) Transfer Judgement
Pep - 8/10 He brought in a lot of great players no doubt at high price, but with his transfer budgets, no surprise, but he made a lot of bad signing too, replaced one overnight.
SAF - 9/10 He made a lot of great signing but combined with lots of flops too especially end of his coaching career.
Klopp - 9.5/10 The poorest manager among all 3 (compared by era) if we compare by net transfer, but he has done his job, occasionally has flop like Keita & the German Keeper.

3) Tactics
Pep - 9/10 Ya, he won many many league titles and 2 CL with Messi. CL life post Messi... sorry...
SAF - 10/10 Who could be better? on/off the field, mind games, influenced referee (part of the tactics) he is the greatest.
Klopp - 8/10 Ya, He lost most of the final wasn't he?

4) Developing Players
Pep - 7/10 Well, he can get ready made Messi, Aguero or Lewandowski why need to developing players, of course he does develop some youth like Foden once in a while, but not at SAF & Klopp extend.
SAF - 9/10 An average player can be a world class under SAF.
Klopp - 9/10 See what life Coutinho has after leaving LFC, both wing backs you need to google to know who the hell they are 3 seasons ago. Salah? A flop in Chelsea.

In conclusion, Pep is good, but he still need time to prove he is at SAF or even Klopp level (Although he won many trophies than Klopp perhaps.)
 
Last edited:

Iker Quesadillas

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
242
Supports
Real Madrid
1) League competitiveness
Pep - 7/10 The time Pep in charged of Barcelona and Bayern, sorry to say that they were 2 teams / 1 team league.
This one is quite baffling.

Under Guardiola, Barcelona won 3 out of 4 league titles, 2 out of 4 cups, and 3 out of 3 domestic supercups. That's a majority of domestic titles; they clearly dominated La Liga. I don't understand what the criticism is supposed to be here. The mere fact that it's a two-team league is supposed to invalidate titles?
 

SeeMe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
104
Supports
Porto
This one is quite baffling.

Under Guardiola, Barcelona won 3 out of 4 league titles, 2 out of 4 cups, and 3 out of 3 domestic supercups. That's a majority of domestic titles; they clearly dominated La Liga. I don't understand what the criticism is supposed to be here. The mere fact that it's a two-team league is supposed to invalidate titles?
I'm comparing the competition competitiveness brother, Everyone know it is easier to be a champion by managing ready made Messi-Xavi-Ineista Barcelona than Dortmund. So I give 7 to Pep 9 to Klopp. No offend to the any competition though.
 

Iker Quesadillas

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
242
Supports
Real Madrid
Right, and if they had a similar amount of titles, that would explain the ratings. Or if they had the same rating.

But Klopp has won 3 league titles to Guardiola's 9. It's a huge difference. He's not exactly known as some kind of league-winning genius.
 

Daydreamer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24
Supports
Arsenal
It’s really difficult to compare them as they all had very different jobs to do. They are each exceptional in their execution of their chosen objectives.

Pep is a master of winning trophies under quite specific conditions (which his clubs gladly provide him with because... he’s a master).

Klopp seems to extract the absolute maximum out of club in the medium term and connects with supporters in a truly authentic way.

Ferguson created a dynasty based on excellence in all areas of management - what find so amazing it’s not so much his strengths... but his absence of real weaknesses over such a long period of time.
 

SeeMe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
104
Supports
Porto
Right, and if they had a similar amount of titles, that would explain the ratings. Or if they had the same rating.

But Klopp has won 3 league titles to Guardiola's 9. It's a huge difference. He's not exactly known as some kind of league-winning genius.
Again brother, it's not fair to compare by trophies as you mentioned, everyone expect Barcelona, Bayern and Man city to win any trophy each year but not Dortmund or Liverpool. Comparison must be Apple to Apple.

For example, one day Pep manage Leeds United with 20 million transfer budget per year, without trophy for 10 years, you can not say this Pep is not as good as Barcelona Pep.
 
Last edited:

kaiser1

Full Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
817
Supports
Bayern Munich
Again brother, it's not fair to compare by trophies as you mentioned, everyone expect Barcelona, Bayern and Man city to win any trophy each year but not Dortmund or Liverpool. Comparison must be Apple to Apple.

For example, one day Pep manage Leeds United with 20 million transfer budget per year, without trophy for 10 years, you can not say this Pep is not as good as Barcelona Pep.
So 1 league trophy with Liverpool will be greater than 8 league trophies with Man Utd? Is that how the algorithm work?
 

Swoobs

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
86
Supports
Florentina
So 1 league trophy with Liverpool will be greater than 8 league trophies with Man Utd? Is that how the algorithm work?
In this forum, the answer depends
If you are talking about Pep or Zidane, the answer is yes.
If you are talking about Mourinho(CL with Porto) or Ranieri (EPL with Leicester), the answer is no.


Anything to make SAF look better than them all mate!
 

Iker Quesadillas

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
242
Supports
Real Madrid
Again brother, it's not fair to compare by trophies as you mentioned, everyone expect Barcelona, Bayern and Man city to win any trophy each year but not Dortmund or Liverpool. Comparison must be Apple to Apple.
You can compare them by factoring in how expected they are to win a title. You seem to think the comparison factor difference is 10, I'm saying it's more like 3-4.

Klopp winning league titles with Dortmund was not some freak occurrence. Other Bundesliga clubs won titles in the 00s: Wolfsburg, Stuttgart, Werder Bremen, and Dortmund themselves. Liverpool are a massive club with healthy finances, they're not some minnow.

Your analysis just reads like it was done backwards: you think Klopp is a brilliant manager so you're rating him 8-9/10 on everything so that the numbers fit.
 
Last edited:

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
23,251
Man management, which SAF has it 10/10 in my books, not tactics
Thats a part of it though. Its like saying Klopp isnt a great tactician, Sir Alex had such a wide range of sides that it doesn't ring true. He maximised the performance of every player he had. He knew where each player fitted in and tailored the side to suit every one of them.
I think the tactcs myth about Sir Alex came when English football hadnt a clue what tactics were. If it wasn't overly complicated then it wasnt tactical.
His 08 side is still the blueprint for modern football all these years later. Pep used that blueprint for his Barca side, using Rooney on the wing especially. Its why Etoo ended up out there.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,753
I wouldn't say that SAF is a 10/10 in tactics, but nobody gets it right all the time. Pep for all his tactical mastery has failed to win a CL since 2011 despite walking in the best sides with a unlimited budget. Mourinho was the master of boring boring but effective tactics for quite a while but was also taken to school several times even before he was "past it".
 

Mark_Barca

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
2,051
Supports
Barcelona
Is getting the absolute best out of his players not tactics?
@Swoobs sums it up below. His man management skills were incredible but there's no chance he's a 10/10 for tactics. The point about turning average playings into world class players is mental as well. A lot of the post doesn't make sense either, Klopp is getting downgraded for losing finals but SAF is still a 10/10 when he lost finals and went out of a CL group stage that included Benfica, Basel and Galati?

No manager is a 10/10 for tactics.
Man management, which SAF has it 10/10 in my books, not tactics
Because it's SAF many will get touchy over it, but he was not this perfect manager in every department, certainly not tactics and that's not knocking him at all. Nobody is top scorers in every department.
 

Pickle85

Full Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
265
@Swoobs sums it up below. His man management skills were incredible but there's no chance he's a 10/10 for tactics. The point about turning average playings into world class players is mental as well. A lot of the post doesn't make sense either, Klopp is getting downgraded for losing finals but SAF is still a 10/10 when he lost finals and went out of a CL group stage that included Benfica, Basel and Galati?

No manager is a 10/10 for tactics.
Because it's SAF many will get touchy over it, but he was not this perfect manager in every department, certainly not tactics and that's not knocking him at all. Nobody is top scorers in every department.
Yeah this is fair for me, though I do think he had the knack of getting the very best out of players which did frequently turn good players into very good players. Funny that the way Pep's career is going at the mo it looks as though it may mirror SAF's in the sense that he's great at establishing domestic dominance but finds Europe a tougher nut to crack.
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
287
Supports
No team in particular
Thats a part of it though. Its like saying Klopp isnt a great tactician, Sir Alex had such a wide range of sides that it doesn't ring true. He maximised the performance of every player he had. He knew where each player fitted in and tailored the side to suit every one of them.
I think the tactcs myth about Sir Alex came when English football hadnt a clue what tactics were. If it wasn't overly complicated then it wasnt tactical.
His 08 side is still the blueprint for modern football all these years later. Pep used that blueprint for his Barca side, using Rooney on the wing especially. Its why Etoo ended up out there.
I know it's a United forum, but saying things like this is just overkill.
Fergie was an extremely respected Manager, but there's a reason why his name never comes up in conversations when talking about coaches that influenced the way the game is played, that's because he had no influence in the way the game is played and wasn't considered a tactical genius.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
21,426
I know it's a United forum, but saying things like this is just overkill.
Fergie was an extremely respected Manager, but there's a reason why his name never comes up in conversations when talking about coaches that influenced the way the game is played, that's because he had no influence in the way the game is played and wasn't considered a tactical genius.
There's more to success than just tactics though. He is revered in the business world.

https://hbr.org/2013/10/fergusons-formula

https://www.gbnews.ch/5-successful-traits-that-business-leaders-can-take-from-sir-alex-ferguson/

https://medium.com/@tanayj/11-lessons-in-business-management-from-sir-alex-ferguson-832176506f0c

https://www.london.edu/think/sir-alex-ferguson-on-how-to-win

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...gers-can-learn-from-manchester-uniteds-master

From a purely tactical perspective, Pep has the edge because he is a student of the game and learned from many greats. For everything else, he still has some way to go imo. Winning the CL with city would have gone a long way.
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
287
Supports
No team in particular
There's more to success than just tactics though. He is revered in the business world.

https://hbr.org/2013/10/fergusons-formula

https://www.gbnews.ch/5-successful-traits-that-business-leaders-can-take-from-sir-alex-ferguson/

https://medium.com/@tanayj/11-lessons-in-business-management-from-sir-alex-ferguson-832176506f0c

https://www.london.edu/think/sir-alex-ferguson-on-how-to-win

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...gers-can-learn-from-manchester-uniteds-master

From a purely tactical perspective, Pep has the edge because he is a student of the game and learned from many greats. For everything else, he still has some way to go imo. Winning the CL with city would have gone a long way.
I said in my post that Fergie was a great Manager and not a great tactician, and then my trying to contradict what i said, you post links confirming he was a great Manager (which i already said he was) with nothing about tactics?

And i never said that there isn't more to success than just tactics, but the post I quoted was about that aspect.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
21,426
I said in my post that Fergie was a great Manager and not a great tactician, and then my trying to contradict what i said, you post links confirming he was a great Manager (which i already said he was) with nothing about tactics?

And i never said that there isn't more to success than just tactics, but the post I quoted was about that aspect.
You said he had no influence on the game but the post you quoted literally just said that Pep was influenced by him?


Ps- he was more than just a great manager. He was a great Winner.
 

kingwaynerooney

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Messages
84
Supports
United
It's very unfair to pep to say he just got the greatest team ever in Barcelona. Barcelona before pep, after 2006 champions league were in complete shambles. Kind of like they are now.

Messi was going to be a star. Who knew xavi iniesta busquets would go on to dominate the midfield like the did.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
23,251
I said in my post that Fergie was a great Manager and not a great tactician, and then my trying to contradict what i said, you post links confirming he was a great Manager (which i already said he was) with nothing about tactics?

And i never said that there isn't more to success than just tactics, but the post I quoted was about that aspect.
The reason why Sir Alex never comes up is because its myth that had been around too long. Look at Klopp, Zidane etc today, very much 1 note managers who use plan A if plan A fails. This is the era of ok managers taking over big clubs and winning trebles, CLs and such. Thats because the so called tactical managers of the past had their elite tactics found out and got left behind. Look at the sides Sir Alex had and compare them to todays teams. How is that not tactical and forward thinking? How is that not celebrated more? SAF simplyfing how we played and maximising it is as much tactical as the false 9s etc. Its just a different way of playing.
Id argue that the vast majority of managers from the past were outgrown and left behind while Sir Alex could adapt. You dont belong to the elite of European football for 20 years by being a man manager or any such cliche. Man managers have short shelf lives, they rely on qualities of the players. Players are burned out, cycles are short and adaptability is minimal. Sir Alex installed those qualities rather than rely on them.
Its a very 2002 point to bring up and thats where it belongs. Player development etc is every bit tactical as playing inverted wing backs.
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
287
Supports
No team in particular
You said he had no influence on the game but the post you quoted literally just said that Pep was influenced by him?


Ps- he was more than just a great manager. He was a great Winner.
I said he had no influence in the way the game is played (play style, tactics) which is simply true.
I never said he wasn't a great winner, that will be ridiculous. But being a great winner doesn't make a great or well respected tactician or someone who's influenced the way the game is being played.


The reason why Sir Alex never comes up is because its myth that had been around too long. Look at Klopp, Zidane etc today, very much 1 note managers who use plan A if plan A fails. This is the era of ok managers taking over big clubs and winning trebles, CLs and such. Thats because the so called tactical managers of the past had their elite tactics found out and got left behind. Look at the sides Sir Alex had and compare them to todays teams. How is that not tactical and forward thinking? How is that not celebrated more? SAF simplyfing how we played and maximising it is as much tactical as the false 9s etc. Its just a different way of playing.
Id argue that the vast majority of managers from the past were outgrown and left behind while Sir Alex could adapt. You dont belong to the elite of European football for 20 years by being a man manager or any such cliche. Man managers have short shelf lives, they rely on qualities of the players. Players are burned out, cycles are short and adaptability is minimal. Sir Alex installed those qualities rather than rely on them.
Its a very 2002 point to bring up and thats where it belongs. Player development etc is every bit tactical as playing inverted wing backs.
So a large part of the football world decided to push the myth against Fergie that he had no tactical influence in the way the game is being played and not never bringing up his name in tactical conversations out of conspiracy against him? Or maybe it's just the truth?
I know it's a United forum, but please let's remain reasonable. He was a great Manager, not a great tactician who influenced the game tactically.