Of course it would make a difference. It would prove he isn't capable and therefore we wouldn't offer him the job. That is a far better outcome than him proving he isn't capable at United!
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
Basically you're saying he needs to be at Manchester United to do well. Doesn't sound like you consider him good enough for Manchester United going by that.
They're in a different category alright, the category Giggs should be in before managing Manchester United (Giggs saying f u badges?). He's not entitled to anything.
Would be one of the biggest disasters to ever happen to the club. And yes I'm being serious. His legacy as a legend would also be tarnished.
The horrible thing is I can really see it happening aswell.
The horrible thing is I can really see it happening aswell.
Yeah his lack of charisma is one of the big reasons I'm unsure of him. He has such a cold personality if interviews are anything to go by. Not like Ferguson or Mourinho for example
It isn't mututally exclusive that a top player can earn a top managerial position 'in merit'. He will already have a head start (probably an EPL club giving him a go) to someone who wasn't a great player.
Cruyff, Beckenbauer and co are really a long time ago that doesn't hold any relevance to modern football. Back then the teams were almost exclusively made from academy players, the money wasn't there, etc etc. Completely different business.
Pep is the only example in modern football of a player who bypassed 'earning his way to the top' process and still became succesful. The problem is that for every Pep there are a lot of Keanos, Ferraras and Klinsmans.
You are wrong I was firmly in the if he doesn't make top 4 he should be out
I was different than others in that I was desperate for him to do well and turn it around.
I can definitely see @Chesterlestreet's point, though.
At what point do we say 'Giggs has proven it'?
Is winning the play offs good enough? Is makkg the play offs with attractive football enough? winning a league title? Keeping fodder up?
Warnock has managed that. Owen Coyle has done that.
At what point would we actually say 'yep thats it.'?
Or is any kind of success enough?
At some point the risk would still need to be taken.
Personally, I'd want to see some sort of evidence that he has his own vision. Not that he's just the 'face' of United, who'll do his best Sir Alex impression.
If he can actually show he has a vision, then why not?
At what point do we say 'Giggs has proven it'?
Is winning the play offs good enough? Is makkg the play offs with attractive football enough? winning a league title? Keeping fodder up?
Warnock has managed that. Owen Coyle has done that.
At what point would we actually say 'yep thats it.'?
Or is any kind of success enough?
At some point the risk would still need to be taken.
Personally, I'd want to see some sort of evidence that he has his own vision. Not that he's just the 'face' of United, who'll do his best Sir Alex impression.
If he can actually show he has a vision, then why not?
At the point when the likes of Madrid, Barca and Bayern may be considering giving him the job (or at least an eventual decision of giving him the job won't be met with a lot of laughs from the fans all around the world). If not then, at least look like there is some good material there, like Mauricio Pochetino, Frank De Bour, Benitez before Pool etc.
To point it into a different way, how would United fans meet the idea of Liverpool making Gerrard as their manager and Chelsea making Terry as their manager? Would we be happy with that? Will we think that they'll be a failure there? If the answer to those 2 questions is 'Yes' then you can see the point of United fans to not want Giggs get the main job. Because rationally speaking, and not living in cuckoo land, chances are extremely high that it will end badly.
There such a narrow view of football outside of a title race.
Look at Southampton in recent years. Swansea. Teams outside the biggies playing quality football. If Giggs is the next top manager, he can do something similar with a smaller team. Maybe get them into Europe and impose his style of play at a high level.
And i thought it was Falcao and Di Maria . Don't you think that is a little OTT.
Those 2 are a bit before my time, didn't even know Beckenbauer had been a manager if i'm honest. Wasn't all that aware that Maldini had been successful as a manager either.
Yes, I am. At least at first.
Realistically (let him prove me wrong and I'll buy him a pint), Ryan Giggs will never become a great manager unless he becomes one at United first. That is his chance. The Cruyff route, if you will.
The chances of him going elsewhere, ascending the ladder, until he's finally considered a properly qualified candidate for the United job - are non-existing, IMO.
That's not a controversial opinion, surely? In the real world you catch a break more often than not. Very few people get to where they are because their sheer genius forces the matter through. Less people, arguably, than ever before.
That sounds kinda odd to me. Surely if he is to have a hope of being successful at United then he would be able to do well elsewhere?
The only rational argument for Giggys is one of continuity. He knows the players, staff, club - has been apart of all things United for over quarter century and would be able to build on what LvG has set up for him. Unfortunately, the lack of experience is a massive concern though. We simply don't know if he has the temperament to manage a professional football club, let alone the world's biggest club.
Senior. Maldini. Old man Maldini. And you didn't know Beckenbauer had been a manager? Fair enough. I've known people (well, birds) who didn't realize he had been a player - when he was a manager - but I can't say I've ever experienced the flip side.
That is strange. He won the World Cup, Bundesliga and UEFA Cup (when it was still a relevant competition) as a manager.
So we consider Swansea and Southampton's recent managers to be 'the next top managers'?
Okay, so he does that. He gets Southampton promoted and/or into Europa League. So we employ him then? Or he has to go to Tottenham first? What does he have to achieve there?
Professionals typically end their careers in their mid-thirties and sometimes even complete their coaching badges before full retirement. Players of the type we're talking are typically already financially set and have connections in more than one high-level football club. These are all general advantages at the beginning of your career, and they can take thirty or more years proving themselves to be worthy of the 'top' jobs of which United would be one.
I don't see any reason why Giggs would succeed at United and not elsewhere if he had the skill to hold that job.
There are uncertainty bringing any manager to any club at any point. LVG hardly set the world alight; few, if any, would have thought that Moyes would fail so miserably. Giggs may not win the league in his first season or two, but he could bring back some of that Manchester United magic that some, including me, feel is lacking at this point. If, at the end of LVG's time at the club, LVG and the board feels that Giggs is up to the task, and he believes so himself, I can see no reason why not to trust him. I would definitely love both Scholes and Neville at the club also.
Looks like i'm showing my age here. Or lack of it, rather.
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make here. Many ex United players have made good, decent, or horrible managers - this isn't about...that. This is about whether Giggs, specifically, can become a good United manager. Not a decent manager by and by for some side somewhere. Most sides somewhere have ex players for their manager.
Giggs is a United legend. He is a player who would, if he succeeded, become a truly great player who went on to manage a truly great club he played for, in some form of direct progress, at the highest level. The precedents are few - but they do exist.
The point is, again: If we were to go for Giggs, it would be a gamble. Any halfwit can see that. But it would belong in a certain tradition. It wouldn't be a random idea.
It's quite a strange issue, because what qualifies as 'successful'? We're in a football age where money is so unevenly spread. You could argue that the elite managers wouldn't win anything with lesser clubs.
Does Moyes' and Hughes' work at Everton/Blackburn not count as success? What can we reasonably ask managers to do beyond doing what they did, which is challenge with a lesser club?
Do we genuinely demand Giggs to win trophies at some club without the money to compete?
I'd actually like to know what people see as enough success, in order for him to deserve the job. Because chances of winning anything with a lesser club in England are slim. Teams generally finish in line with how much they spend. That goes for every manager.
Will a single cup win do? Is it realistic to ask for more?
Last edited:
Then f**k tradition!
There's plenty of traditions that are complete crap and need to be removed. This may well be one of them!
Perceptions of charisma based on tv interviews is a fairly flawed reason to dismiss anyone.
In my book, definitely no. If Giggs does a Moyes and Hughes then he would have already shown us that he is incapable of doing well here.
A Pellegrini, Favre or Pochetino in the other side? Well, it won't guarantee success but it will show that there is a high chance of success if he takes charge. He doesn't need to win titles to get the United job IMO, but he needs to show that he has some good material there and can win titles if given the chance.
What you quoted meant 'successful' relative to others taking the same position, in other words making United perform at their expected level or even exceed it.
I get what you mean in terms of success being relative across levels of football club and some skill sets being more and less important as you move between them though. I'd imagine being able to hire and manage large teams of high-level backroom staff and delegate successfully plays a more important role in larger clubs than smaller ones for instance.
Yes. I hear ye. And that was a key difference back then for many of us who were considered "apologists" or whatnot.
Pochettino wasn't being looked at for the top jobs. He'd had a year and a half of impressive stuff in this league, and I don't believe he tore his other league to shreds - though I don't know much about his past.
He's arguably gone to Tottenham to prove himself for the even bigger jobs. But you'd take Giggs in that circumstance? Just because he's Giggs, or why?
Has Pochettino shown he can win titles? Is what he's shown actually good enough?
It's not a "tradition" exclusive to any club or any league system. It's pretty much universal. You give the gig to someone who's been around for donkeys', has won the lot, looks half decent in a suit - and hey, there you go.
It's a common practice, I suppose. What's less common, however, is doing it at the highest level. Not many precedents there, as stated. But some. And the evidence points to the practice being at least somewhat successful.
Have we got any indication on his tactical skills? He has the respect and presence about him and with a cunning sidekick a'la Queiroz he could do good i imagine.
I know but he has serial killer eyes
I never said he wouldn't succeed elsewhere. But "success" is relative. The only thing relevant to this discussion is the kind of "success" which would be considered adequate for United. My point is simple: Demanding that Giggs goes out and proves himself elsewhere is bollocks in a certain context. He will never do that, in all likelihood. Yes, of course, he can in theory turn up twenty years from now with the CV of an Ancelotti, achieved elsewhere - but then we'd be talking about something else, not what we're actually talking about, which is giving the gig to a club legend.
You dismiss the latter - or you don't. Fair enough either way. But the approach HAS worked, even for historically great sides. Doesn't mean it will for Giggs, of course - and blah feckin' blah.
Great OP Walrus and I can see it's really got a lot of people thinking one way or the other.
I'm torn on it though. On the one hand what a great story if he took over and was a success. On the other hand as a club legend what if he crashes? Would his legend status be in tact if as a manager he fails?
I can see the merits in it working. He's worked with the best manager ever and then he's worked with SAF and LVG as well...
OK just a bit of fun.
But on a serious note I do think he could have learnt all the positives and negatives from the managers he's worked under. I'm sure there were things about Fergie he didn't like but then maybe Moyes did things that he thought were useful.
My concern though (other than damaging his legend status) is that taking those tips and then using them successfully are very different things. But at the end of the day taking on any coach would be a risk as someone has already said. There's nothing to say Klopp or Pep would be a success for sure.
Walrus you raised some excellent points and argued a really good case for Giggs. Maybe you want to do the same for the United board?
So decision time... Am I for or against it? Hmm... Yeah why not? If it goes wrong it would be gutting but it could go wrong with anyone at the helm. And I'm sure the Glazers will apply the same toss of which coin logic to their decision.
I'm torn on it though. On the one hand what a great story if he took over and was a success. On the other hand as a club legend what if he crashes? Would his legend status be in tact if as a manager he fails?
I can see the merits in it working. He's worked with the best manager ever and then he's worked with SAF and LVG as well...
OK just a bit of fun. But on a serious note I do think he could have learnt all the positives and negatives from the managers he's worked under. I'm sure there were things about Fergie he didn't like but then maybe Moyes did things that he thought were useful.
My concern though (other than damaging his legend status) is that taking those tips and then using them successfully are very different things. But at the end of the day taking on any coach would be a risk as someone has already said. There's nothing to say Klopp or Pep would be a success for sure.
Walrus you raised some excellent points and argued a really good case for Giggs. Maybe you want to do the same for the United board?
So decision time... Am I for or against it? Hmm... Yeah why not? If it goes wrong it would be gutting but it could go wrong with anyone at the helm. And I'm sure the Glazers will apply the same toss of which coin logic to their decision.
He obviously knows the club. Has learned from the greatest football manager of all time and is now assistant manager to one of the best.
I have no doubt he would one day manage Manchester United. He obviously has his views and the personality. My only caution would be...Would managing the biggest football club on earth be a step too far too soon?
Perhaps a a few years at another club would be helpful. If it was just coaching , I would have no fears. But with United, teh entire media circius and extreme scruttiny, may be a burden too soon.
I have no doubt he would one day manage Manchester United. He obviously has his views and the personality. My only caution would be...Would managing the biggest football club on earth be a step too far too soon?
Perhaps a a few years at another club would be helpful. If it was just coaching , I would have no fears. But with United, teh entire media circius and extreme scruttiny, may be a burden too soon.
Okay, you said this:
For him to be considered for the United job, he presumably would have had to succeeded at a club of a similar level, or at least be capable of doing so. This level of managerial skill at high level clubs presumably would evidence itself over time and give him a fighting chance of ascending to consideration for the position we're talking about.
Asking that Giggs prove himself a head coach outside of his playing career doesn't seem to be 'bollocks' or unreasonable in any way.
We've had dozens of great players who have tried their hand at management and not a single one of them have been good enough for a club our size. I don't see what makes Ryan Giggs any different.
Whenever the main argument in favour of him getting the job basically amounts to 'he's Ryan Giggs' then you know it's a terrible idea.
Whenever the main argument in favour of him getting the job basically amounts to 'he's Ryan Giggs' then you know it's a terrible idea.
Forgive me but you are sounding like 'Giggs has to get the job, he must' thus asking him to prove himself elsewhere will put paid to that notion. What makes you think that He has to get the job over obvious candidates like Guardiola, Ancelotti et al? How about the likes of Gary Neville, Bryan Robson or Beckham since spending time under Fergie's wing seems to be enough?
After the last gamble we took trying to write a fairy tale and the subsequent cost of the rebuildinh exercise I am now firmly against such unnecessary risks. Bring in a proven operator, give him some money and watch the good times roll again. You know like every other club does. If Giggs wants the job then he has to prove himself, simple. Organizations grow or go bust as a result of decisions such as these.
Very true... Keane didn't cut it but then is that down to his temper? Ole hasn't made it despite a promising start but then fergie did tell him to avoid Cardiff.
Steve Bruce has done pretty well? And Mark Hughes after a dip is now rebuilding his managerial career. But no neither yet have shown they'd be ready and I doubt they ever will.
I'm trying to think of who what has tried their hand at management...
We'll never know if Giggs will make it until someone gives me a go. Whether that's to be us or not is another matter.
When I look at the above mentioned names no none have been good enough to manage our club. But all have characteristics that at one point maybe thought they could?
At first I thought the fear factor of Keane would work... The intelligence of Ole... And to me Giggs has the sophisticated factor. But of course maybe like Keane and Ole that is nowhere near enough. Then again maybe it is?
Just to weigh back in and offer @Chesterlestreet some support.
The reason I dont think we should be sending Giggs out to a lower tier team is because it doesnt prove anything. Managing Manchester United is a completely different job (no pun intended) to managing West Ham. Again I point to David Moyes as a recent example of that. It takes different skills and strengths to manage United - and that is the job he is being groomed for by LVG, not to manage Cheltenham Town.
In answGiggs has learnt from SAF and LVG what it takes to be a Manchester United manager. Will he be up to the task? Maybe, maybe not, but there is risk in any managerial appointment, and for me, the potential upside makes Giggs a risk worth taking.
Giggs doing well with a Championship team will not affect his ability to manage at United. I agree with @Chesterlestreet that if he is to be appointed, it needs to be an internal appointment, and that the circumstances are right post-LVG for that to happen.
I wouldnt support appointing Giggs to take over from Ferguson, as it was obviously a huge rebuilding job and one that we needed (or should have had) an experienced top tier manager for.
I wouldnt support Giggs to take over from Moyes, because there was a strong requirement for instant success, as well as an expected transition - again, it was an appointment that called for experience.
Once LVG has been here for 3 years however, and put a framework/system in place, we dont (or shouldnt) want someone to come in and scrap that, only to start from scratch trying to reinvent the wheel. We will want someone to take over those foundations and build on them, and that is what I see Giggs as being able to do.
Other clubs like Madrid, Chelsea and City change managers every couple of years it seems, but they do not fundamentally alter their style. They typically - through a Director of Football or other similar role - have a plan for their team, their style of play etc, and the manager acts as a head coach. United does not (or has not) operated that way, and thus when a manager comes in, there is no pre-existing ruleset or template for them, they are given total control. Now we are at a stage where we will have that framework. If we are planning on hiring Klopp we may as well have sacked LVG this summer and replaced him (if possible), since there would be an inevitable upheaval.
I ask again - what level of success would or should Giggs achieve outside of United (as a manager) before he is considered for the role? Should he be expected to work his way from the bottom to the top and win a CL before we accept him?
Was Moyes not a success at Everton? Did that qualify him to be Manchester United manager? If Giggs replicated Moyes' Everton tenure at a club of similar stature, what would that therefore prove about his ability to manage United?
Its all very well pointing to Keane and Ole - but which of them was given a chance at managing United? The point I have made several times and believe is valid, is that performance at a much lower tier club does not automatically correlate to performance at United. Neither of those two (nor anyone else) was groomed for the United job in the way Giggs appears to be, so I would say he has a much higher chance of success than them anyway.
@Randall Flagg cheers
The reason I dont think we should be sending Giggs out to a lower tier team is because it doesnt prove anything. Managing Manchester United is a completely different job (no pun intended) to managing West Ham. Again I point to David Moyes as a recent example of that. It takes different skills and strengths to manage United - and that is the job he is being groomed for by LVG, not to manage Cheltenham Town.
In answGiggs has learnt from SAF and LVG what it takes to be a Manchester United manager. Will he be up to the task? Maybe, maybe not, but there is risk in any managerial appointment, and for me, the potential upside makes Giggs a risk worth taking.
Giggs doing well with a Championship team will not affect his ability to manage at United. I agree with @Chesterlestreet that if he is to be appointed, it needs to be an internal appointment, and that the circumstances are right post-LVG for that to happen.
I wouldnt support appointing Giggs to take over from Ferguson, as it was obviously a huge rebuilding job and one that we needed (or should have had) an experienced top tier manager for.
I wouldnt support Giggs to take over from Moyes, because there was a strong requirement for instant success, as well as an expected transition - again, it was an appointment that called for experience.
Once LVG has been here for 3 years however, and put a framework/system in place, we dont (or shouldnt) want someone to come in and scrap that, only to start from scratch trying to reinvent the wheel. We will want someone to take over those foundations and build on them, and that is what I see Giggs as being able to do.
Other clubs like Madrid, Chelsea and City change managers every couple of years it seems, but they do not fundamentally alter their style. They typically - through a Director of Football or other similar role - have a plan for their team, their style of play etc, and the manager acts as a head coach. United does not (or has not) operated that way, and thus when a manager comes in, there is no pre-existing ruleset or template for them, they are given total control. Now we are at a stage where we will have that framework. If we are planning on hiring Klopp we may as well have sacked LVG this summer and replaced him (if possible), since there would be an inevitable upheaval.
I ask again - what level of success would or should Giggs achieve outside of United (as a manager) before he is considered for the role? Should he be expected to work his way from the bottom to the top and win a CL before we accept him?
Was Moyes not a success at Everton? Did that qualify him to be Manchester United manager? If Giggs replicated Moyes' Everton tenure at a club of similar stature, what would that therefore prove about his ability to manage United?
Its all very well pointing to Keane and Ole - but which of them was given a chance at managing United? The point I have made several times and believe is valid, is that performance at a much lower tier club does not automatically correlate to performance at United. Neither of those two (nor anyone else) was groomed for the United job in the way Giggs appears to be, so I would say he has a much higher chance of success than them anyway.
@Randall Flagg cheers
Last edited:
I'm in the "no" camp; at least not until he's managed a big (ish) club elsewhere and been successful. I don't care how well he's imbued with the United ethos as others have gone down that path and failed miserably. Bobby Charlton learned from the best then went to Preston and flopped. Robbo did all right at Boro but didn't last the course. Brucie has yet to convince that he's good enough to manage at the top and Keano's record ain't stellar.
People who are capable of managing a club this big are thin on the ground. Pep, Mourinho, Ancelotti, and Van Gaal have all done it before. Benitez (God forgive me) has the pedigree and maybe Klopp. Capello too but he's on the down escalator. Giggs is a lightweight compared to them, at least when compared as a potential manager.
But there again, we hired Moyes and after he got the old tin tack, Fergie was heard trumpeting Giggy's name as the next manager. But for, it has to be someone from outside the club and of the calibre of those I've named. The days of promoting from the boot room, as Liverpool did so well, are gone.
- Status