Sir Alex Ferguson: Never Give In

UnofficialDevil

Anti Scottish
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
15,691
Location
I'm not anti Scottish, I just wanted Moyes out.
In those games that I mentioned we most certainly did. Also, 'defensive' and 'offensive' are not binary values. It's a spectrum.



The game I mentioned ended 1-1. We were set up significantly more defensive than usual, and we created few chances.



'Hating to defend' does not equal 'never set up his team defensively'. There is no contradiction there.

Look at the 1-1 game vs Real, the 0-0 game vs Barcelona and our away games vs City between 2011 and 2013. Then look at the average game vs opponents like Aston Villa etc. If you don't see a significant difference in attacking intent(defensive line, men committed forward, urgency, risk taking etc) then I seriously question your understanding of football.
Oh come on. Give it up will you. Your first statement was Sir Alex always set up defensively against the likes of Barcelona Real and Bayern because he is a smart manager. Now you realised thats not true you keep on refering to a couple of games over and over again. After 20 years of not setting up defensively against the big teams in champions league including Barcelona and Real you just come up with two matches to defend your statement that SAF set up defensively against big teams which simply isn’t true. And I don’t care if you question my understanding of footbal one bit just like I don’t care for personal insults.

And I reapeat Sir Alex’s quote “ I know we could win the final against Barcelona if we play defensively but I don’t want to play like that, I want us to attack the way United is supposed to” those are his words not mine.
 
Last edited:

OleBoiii

Full Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
5,097
Oh come on. Give it up will you. Your first statement was Sir Alex always set up defensively against the likes of Barcelona Real and Bayern because he is a smart manager. Now you realised thats not true you keep on refering to a couple of games over and over again. After 20 years of playing attacking football against the big teams in champions league including Barcelona and Real you just come up with two matches to defend your statement that SAF set up defensively against big teams which simply isn’t true. And I don’t care if you question my understanding of footbal one bit just like I don’t care for personal insults.
If you're gonna quote me, at least quote me correctly:

In the last 3-4 years of his career, we always set up defensively against the likes of Barca, Real and City in the away fixtures.
There are 3 very important parts in this statement:

1. The last 3-4 years of his career.
2. The likes of
3. Away fixtures

'The likes of' can be translated to 'teams that are stronger or roughly the same level'. I already admitted that 'always' was a bit of a stretch, but we certainly set up quite defensively most of the time against such teams in the away fixtures during those years. If you need my definition of 'defensively', then read my other posts in this thread.

Also, I don't really count CL finals as an away fixture(no home advantage for the other team). I should have added that, but I didn't think it was necessary.

We are probably arguing about different things here. I'm not saying that we parked the bus in these games. I'm saying that Fergie made significant changes, and these changes were for the most part leaning towards the defensive side of the spectrum. That doesn't make Fergie a defensive coach. Very few teams had the ability to force this out of him, after all. And I use 'force' because ideally he didn't want to play like this, obviously.
 

UnofficialDevil

Anti Scottish
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
15,691
Location
I'm not anti Scottish, I just wanted Moyes out.
If you're gonna quote me, at least quote me correctly:



There are 3 very important parts in this statement:

1. The last 3-4 years of his career.
2. The likes of
3. Away fixtures

'The likes of' can be translated to 'teams that are stronger or roughly the same level'. I already admitted that 'always' was a bit of a stretch, but we certainly set up quite defensively most of the time against such teams in the away fixtures during those years. If you need my definition of 'defensively', then read my other posts in this thread.

Also, I don't really count CL finals as an away fixture(no home advantage for the other team). I should have added that, but I didn't think it was necessary.

We are probably arguing about different things here. I'm not saying that we parked the bus in these games. I'm saying that Fergie made significant changes, and these changes were for the most part leaning towards the defensive side of the spectrum. That doesn't make Fergie a defensive coach. Very few teams had the ability to force this out of him, after all. And I use 'force' because ideally he didn't want to play like this, obviously.
Sorry I dint notice the “last 3 years of his career”, my bad. So yes we probably are arguing about different things. Even so I still can’t think of a match where we were ever playing not to lose, but as you say he never parked the bus. And I agree with your last paragraph and that very few teams could force him to play anything other than the way he loved us to play.
 
Last edited:

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,238
A younger Fergie, yes. I'm not sure how open the older Fergie was open to the required changes - and that included the coaching staff and squad.
I am sure SAF would have managed to win 3-4 more league games instead of losing or drawing them against mid table or bottom half teams if he knew this would win us the league. No doubt about it. He was refusing to match the transfer fees Chelsea were paying because he was still winning titles. I am sure if he lost a league title even two years in a row to City or Chelsea he would have agreed to pay more in order to sign players of better quality than Young or Valencia.
A 60-66/67 year old SAF would definitely have adapted. A 70+ year old might not because he was about to retire. I actually believe if we hadn’t lost the title to the noisy neighbours especially the way we did, he would have already retired in 2012.
 

Amir

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
23,166
Location
Rehovot, Israel
I am sure SAF would have managed to win 3-4 more league games instead of losing or drawing them against mid table or bottom half teams if he knew this would win us the league. No doubt about it. He was refusing to match the transfer fees Chelsea were paying because he was still winning titles. I am sure if he lost a league title even two years in a row to City or Chelsea he would have agreed to pay more in order to sign players of better quality than Young or Valencia.
A 60-66/67 year old SAF would definitely have adapted. A 70+ year old might not because he was about to retire. I actually believe if we hadn’t lost the title to the noisy neighbours especially the way we did, he would have already retired in 2012.
He pretty much said so in his autobiography...

I don't disagree with you, by the way, especially when it comes to the younger vs older versions of him. But I think matching up to City would have required more than buying better players, but also a certain change in our football - kind of like the one Quieroz gave us.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,238
He pretty much said so in his autobiography...

I don't disagree with you, by the way, especially when it comes to the younger vs older versions of him. But I think matching up to City would have required more than buying better players, but also a certain change in our football - kind of like the one Quieroz gave us.
He would have made the required changes. Let’s not forget Quieroz came in 2002 and apart from 1 year at RM he was here until 2008. Our football took time to change even with him. It would have taken some time again, time a 70 year old doesn’t have in active football.
 

Schmeichel's Cartwheel

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
11,360
Location
Manchester
Is this like the Last Dance? With tons of never before seen old footage? Or is it new footage with voiceover over older footage?

Looking forward to it anyway.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,068
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Location
Manchester
Sorry if this has been posted, but a small clip from the documentary and an insight into his player by player man management! Excited for this I have to say!

 

The Oracle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
455
SAF created the Glazers.
Indeed. Ironically, 'Never Give In' was a mindset that in my opinion brought about the Glazers (who otherwise may never had been in a position at any time to take over the club).

To think that SAF took legal action against the biggest shareholder at Manchester United... of which they then hastily sold their shares, and subsequently a Glazer takeover was completed.

Absolutely incredible whichever way you look at it.
 

Tom Van Persie

No relation
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
16,391
Indeed. Ironically, 'Never Give In' was a mindset that in my opinion brought about the Glazers (who otherwise may never had been in a position at any time to take over the club).

To think that SAF took legal action against the biggest shareholder at Manchester United... of which they then hastily sold their shares, and subsequently a Glazer takeover was completed.

Absolutely incredible whichever way you look at it.
The Glazers were buying up shares before then. Reality is we were going to be sold eventually.
 

Tom Van Persie

No relation
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
16,391
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
No he didn't. He had every right to stand his ground, he couldn't control who buys the club.
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
15,035
Location
London
The Glazers were buying up shares before then. Reality is we were going to be sold eventually.
Had this same argument with some weirdo on here. Honestly it takes some serious gymnastics to be able to make these statements. Presumably all of these people have sat down and spoken with the Glazers, Magniers and McManus and have been able to put the two and two together and make eight thousand.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
7,379
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Sir Alex Ferguson had that unique ability to be both a father and headmaster to his players. And because of the care and the way he both supported and encouraged them, he was able to gain their trust and total respect.
Any player would feel immensely privileged to play for him.
Such a brilliant manager.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
32,083
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
:lol: what a stupid post. The guy is human, nobody is perfect.

They'll rightly be concentrating on the great man he is and his fantastic achievements. His personal interests away from football aren't anything that need discussing.
 

Shark

@NotShark
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
23,417
Location
Ireland
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
:houllier:
 

The Oracle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
455
The Glazers were buying up shares before then. Reality is we were going to be sold eventually.
The same can be said about John Magnier (who Fergie was in dispute with) - who actually along with his business partner JP McManus, increased their shareholding in Utd to just over 23%, the month before Fergie brought about legal proceedings.
 

Tom Van Persie

No relation
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
16,391
:lol: what a stupid post. The guy is human, nobody is perfect.

They'll rightly be concentrating on the great man he is and his fantastic achievements. His personal interests away from football aren't anything that need discussing.
This fanbase...
 

RedDevilRoshi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
7,211
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
Dearie me, what an absolute pathetic post :rolleyes:
 

Acquire Me

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
6,252
Location
Norway
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
Bullshit!
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Location
Manchester
Created the Glazers! :lol: What a load of crock.

Sir Alex was the only reason we continued bro compete under them! As evidence since, has shown!
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
1,060
The idea the Glazers bought a football club because two people they’d never met had an argument over a horse is hilariously moronic
 

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,230
The man is a genius whose accomplishments are enormous. However he had many flaws too, and I hope the fact his family are making the documentary does not mean they will be glossed over. SAF created the Glazers.
This is just incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's categorically incorrect. The Glaziers were sporting behemoths who owned Tampa Bay and were going to buy into United as their next step.

It's a basic causality fallacy. You're attempting to link 2 events without proving that one caused the other, in any way shape or form. If you do have a shred of evidence that the first incident actuated the second, you may share it.
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
35,206
Location
This is just incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's categorically incorrect. The Glaziers were sporting behemoths who owned Tampa Bay and were going to buy into United as their next step.

It's a basic causality fallacy. You're attempting to link 2 events without proving that one caused the other, in any way shape or form. If you do have a shred of evidence that the first incident actuated the second, you may share it.
This.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,068
This is just incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's categorically incorrect. The Glaziers were sporting behemoths who owned Tampa Bay and were going to buy into United as their next step.

It's a basic causality fallacy. You're attempting to link 2 events without proving that one caused the other, in any way shape or form. If you do have a shred of evidence that the first incident actuated the second, you may share it.
My recollection was that J.P McManus bought up the shares just to pressure SAF into line over 'Rock of Gibraltar'. Once he was successful he just flogged them to the highest bidder - so the Glazers swept in with an eye for a bargain during a period of chaos.

I suppose you could argue that the Glazers could have and would have bought the shares direct off the stock market anyway but that's not how it happened and we don't have a counter factual to know. The board, the fans and SAF IMHO would have fought off that kind of unwelcome buyout (as they did with Murdoch) had their intentions been clearcut and the situation not been so chaotic.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
1,060
You don’t but Manchester United on a whim. Glazers only ever bought shares to begin with because they wanted to buy the club.

It was as asset valued at around £700m not a reduced whole salmon at Morrison’s they didn’t intend on buying but picked up when they were there looking for bananas

Owning sports teams is the family business
 

Mr Pigeon

Hero of Galtia
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
18,398
Location
Staging a 'coo' against my enemies
Sorry if this has been posted, but a small clip from the documentary and an insight into his player by player man management! Excited for this I have to say!

I know he had to retire eventually but I really do miss him being our manager. The younger fans who have only known Moyes, LVG, Mourinho missed out. Genuinely honoured to have seen him on the touchline waving his hands around a few times.

I like Ole. I see glimpses of Sir Alex in him. But I don't want Ole to be Sir Alex, if that makes sense. It's good to see the same fire in the belly and respect for the club but, yeah. I guess all things come to an end at some point. Sir Alex is an absolute fecking Legend and that's putting it lightly.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
13,875
My recollection was that J.P McManus bought up the shares just to pressure SAF into line over 'Rock of Gibraltar'. Once he was successful he just flogged them to the highest bidder - so the Glazers swept in with an eye for a bargain during a period of chaos.

I suppose you could argue that the Glazers could have and would have bought the shares direct off the stock market anyway but that's not how it happened and we don't have a counter factual to know. The board, the fans and SAF IMHO would have fought off that kind of unwelcome buyout (as they did with Murdoch) had their intentions been clearcut and the situation not been so chaotic.
The scum owned almost 30% at the end of '04, SAF's spat with McManus and Magnier began in '03. By summer ´05 they owned it virtually all. Those leveraged buyouts take a long time to prepare, so they were likely looking at this for a long while. I don't think SAF's stupid spat with M&M caused the takeover, but he definitely didn't take any sort of a public stance against the takeover, and we were successful in spite of them due to SAF. I'd be surprised if in his heart of hearts he isn't conflicted about not having spoken out at the time.
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Location
Manchester
I know he had to retire eventually but I really do miss him being our manager. The younger fans who have only known Moyes, LVG, Mourinho missed out. Genuinely honoured to have seen him on the touchline waving his hands around a few times.

I like Ole. I see glimpses of Sir Alex in him. But I don't want Ole to be Sir Alex, if that makes sense. It's good to see the same fire in the belly and respect for the club but, yeah. I guess all things come to an end at some point. Sir Alex is an absolute fecking Legend and that's putting it lightly.
I completley agree, I try to explain sometime the aura and will to win he had and made his team's produce almost every game, 15 minutes to go and if we were down a goal the opponent knew there would be lashes upon lashes of attacks with Sir Alex bellowing instruction from the touchline! Just witnessing him from 50-200 metres away was indeed a surreal experience and I am glad we have at least found a manager who wants to instill the same believes, even if the results differ.

An honour to have supported this man and help raw his team to success after success!

That looks absolutely "I can't wait" :drool:
My sentiments exactly! Gonna drag the misses and kids into watching it as his legacy is one that needs to be heard.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,068
The scum owned almost 30% at the end of '04, SAF's spat with McManus and Magnier began in '03. By summer ´05 they owned it virtually all. Those leveraged buyouts take a long time to prepare, so they were likely looking at this for a long while. I don't think SAF's stupid spat with M&M caused the takeover, but he definitely didn't take any sort of a public stance against the takeover, and we were successful in spite of them due to SAF. I'd be surprised if in his heart of hearts he isn't conflicted about not having spoken out at the time.
I think the kindest interpretation to SAF is that he made it much easier than it would have been. My view is he made it possible where it would not otherwise have been, but it cannot be proven one way or another. But I'm Roy Keane-ish on this one. Of course the Top Reds will reject any criticism of SAF out of hand and that's what makes them Top Reds.

SAF is a great man. It might have happened anyway. But for me that one is partly on him.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
87,756
Location
Viva Ronaldo!
My recollection was that J.P McManus bought up the shares just to pressure SAF into line over 'Rock of Gibraltar'. Once he was successful he just flogged them to the highest bidder - so the Glazers swept in with an eye for a bargain during a period of chaos.

I suppose you could argue that the Glazers could have and would have bought the shares direct off the stock market anyway but that's not how it happened and we don't have a counter factual to know. The board, the fans and SAF IMHO would have fought off that kind of unwelcome buyout (as they did with Murdoch) had their intentions been clearcut and the situation not been so chaotic.
They actively wanted to oust Fergie from his postion of manager. Over a horse. I'll take the Glazers any day over fecking idiots of that calibre. The board went looking for investors so they could temper Magnier and McManus' influence.