Considering what he got out of the squad at the end of his tenure I'd say it's a resounding yes. Valencia, Young, Anderson, Cleverley, Old Scholes, Old Giggs, and waning Park Ji Sung, an inconsistent Nani, Michael Owen, all in and pivotal to a couple of league wins and good CL runs.
Was Sir Alex a tactical dinosaur? I Poll Added
- Thread starter K2K
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
You could criticize his strategical prowess more so than his tactics, which is an important distinction.
Yeah I'd say he works similarly.
Fergie would do some daft things tactically from time to time. I never thought he was a tactical genius but he was hardly tactically naive, and you can't really say someone else has come in and "modernised" things when they're most decipherable tactic is putting someone tall up front and hoofing the ball aimlessly to them...the exact same thing Moyes got called a dinosaur for even though he never actually did it!
He was a tactical dinosaur. Until Queiroz came in, we didn't really play modern football at all and played with the basic 4-4-2 principle of english football. You couldn't distinguish between us and the rest in terms of playing style but we had the much better personal and continued to beat them. Another thing was SAF used to strike fear into the players to an extent that giving anything but your best was never allowed. Unlike Wenger who sometimes has players not pulling their weight.
Let's put it like this, if SAF put out inferior players on the pitch to the opposition we were gonna get beat. Most of the time we did in europe against the other big teams. Sometimes we got beat when we had better individuals than the opposition.
When he bought Veron it looked like he was trying to adjust his tactics but then couldn't make it work. Carlos then came in and our football changed. Still direct at times but much more controlled and organised. Then he left and we took steps back again and went back to playing the football we played before he came in.
Let's put it like this, if SAF put out inferior players on the pitch to the opposition we were gonna get beat. Most of the time we did in europe against the other big teams. Sometimes we got beat when we had better individuals than the opposition.
When he bought Veron it looked like he was trying to adjust his tactics but then couldn't make it work. Carlos then came in and our football changed. Still direct at times but much more controlled and organised. Then he left and we took steps back again and went back to playing the football we played before he came in.
Holy hyperbole batman, I don't know where to start!
i first voted yes then thought about some formation changes and some pairings he played - he was pretty fecking good at tactics.
This thread has made me yearn for the great man in a way I never have. We were fecking blessed to have that man at this club for so long.
Yes and no. It is true that his teams did not play with the tactical sophistication of the continental teams. This is however not because he was an idiot but more due to a different vision of how football should be played. Sir Alex liked his football end to end with high tempo, he loved the drama and excitement it generated much like most of us really and most fans of English football. The tactical masters however are all about zones, space, control and so on.
If however, what you mean by tactics is devising a strategy to win a football game like assigning a man marker or attacking a particular area or whatever, then of course Sir Alex is as accomplished as any, he is probably no Mourinho in that sense but he wasn't an idiot either.
If however, what you mean by tactics is devising a strategy to win a football game like assigning a man marker or attacking a particular area or whatever, then of course Sir Alex is as accomplished as any, he is probably no Mourinho in that sense but he wasn't an idiot either.
I'd summarise his tactics as attacking and risk-taking. That's how you win games and entertain the fans.
Genius!
Genius!
We put too much emphasis on continental results. And despite his missteps in Europe, he won 4 trophies in Europe, reached 2 more finals, and built teams that broke records. And tactical discussions for some annoying reason ignore league results, as if he just shouted and ranted in the dressing room and the players had no tactical shape or instruction against the Spurs and Stokes of the league.
Tactically brilliant , and got the best out of his players
Anyone who says otherwise gets a Glasgow Kiss
Anyone who says otherwise gets a Glasgow Kiss
Well people can argue about this all they want but SAF instilled passion, hunger and a 'never say die' attitude and what he achieved with that squad in his last 3 or 4 yeears was astonishing. £300mil later and we still are not at the level Fergie got us. I'd give anything to have him back to be honest.
It wasn't his absolute strongest point but, unlike many of his peers (Benitez, Ancellloti), his team were competing for the domestic league almost every season which meant he had to perform a balancing act in terms of preparation and selection. To put it another way, he could have added a few more cups if he had chucked the league, but then he would not have been Fergie.
Ancelotti is a good comparison really. Both are tactically astute enough to operate at the highest level but neither are tactics-orientated coaches. Both were also far better than other elite managers in other aspects of the game though. For example, Ancelotti is probably the best of the top coaches in terms of man management right now. Over the long term that is probably more valuable than being a particularly brilliant tactician I'd have thought.
More like a genius. Anyone who voted yes is on the list.
Fergie's strengths were all about getting teams to win and it was certainly not all man management, far from it. He more than anyone knew what was needed to win games - tactically, motivationally, fitness-wise. There were many wrong things he did but so many more right, and many of those were unfathomable to me until the clear evidence that they worked was presented. He knew his players inside and out, knew when they were just out of form and needed playing to get it back, knew when to move players on, when to take them out of the side. He knew how to deploy players to counter and more especially to trouble the opposition, and he knew how to use subs, when to go for it and when not to. I have not seen his like. Mourinho also knows his players and how to use them very well but plays it safer.
Fergie's strengths were all about getting teams to win and it was certainly not all man management, far from it. He more than anyone knew what was needed to win games - tactically, motivationally, fitness-wise. There were many wrong things he did but so many more right, and many of those were unfathomable to me until the clear evidence that they worked was presented. He knew his players inside and out, knew when they were just out of form and needed playing to get it back, knew when to move players on, when to take them out of the side. He knew how to deploy players to counter and more especially to trouble the opposition, and he knew how to use subs, when to go for it and when not to. I have not seen his like. Mourinho also knows his players and how to use them very well but plays it safer.
Last edited:
Crazy question. You can't build as many different title winning teams built around different talents and players without being astute tactically. He never created a style of play that revolutionized the game, but even with the tremendous talent he had you can see that Ferguson overachieved, particularly in the 4 years after Ronaldo left. We were 1 point (fecking Berbatov @ Blackburn) and goal difference away (fecking Aguero) from winning 7 consecutive titles on the trot, with the last 4 without even coming close to adequately replacing a once in a lifetime player.
Nope, and atleast his teams would play decent football unlike the present one by LVG.
He repeatedly built an open pass and move style team, which is still the best way to exploit having more talent and to win enough games to win the league, but he wasn't great at nullifying better teams (only doing so at the highest level when we had no real weak links in 06-08, when our only not pretty damn great starter was O'Shea/Brown at RB and they generally did very well defensively) except for the brilliant but exploitable Wenger teams.
Deserves lots of credit for not making massive errors by misusing his best players (we never saw Scholes out wide) and for being open to tactical trends like Spaletti's stuff he copied.
Generally, he used players well, aside from Veron, Forlan and a few others. A lot of other great managers would have failed to use Park as well as he did. Same for Giggs switching positions late in his career.
But his main strength by far was his understanding of talent and man-management. And we had great youth talent and after that, spent a lot of money very wisely (Vidic + Evra + VDS giving us 3 stars in defense for about 20 combined seasons) for about 15M.
I'm reading his new book. Might have some thoughts after it. So far there's remarkably little tactical discussion in it.
I think it would be interesting to see him with the right team in international management. The Dutch should give him a call. They're a mess and he got good production from Stam and Van Nistelrooy, and he never hit Buttner, even when he must have wanted to.
Deserves lots of credit for not making massive errors by misusing his best players (we never saw Scholes out wide) and for being open to tactical trends like Spaletti's stuff he copied.
Generally, he used players well, aside from Veron, Forlan and a few others. A lot of other great managers would have failed to use Park as well as he did. Same for Giggs switching positions late in his career.
But his main strength by far was his understanding of talent and man-management. And we had great youth talent and after that, spent a lot of money very wisely (Vidic + Evra + VDS giving us 3 stars in defense for about 20 combined seasons) for about 15M.
I'm reading his new book. Might have some thoughts after it. So far there's remarkably little tactical discussion in it.
I think it would be interesting to see him with the right team in international management. The Dutch should give him a call. They're a mess and he got good production from Stam and Van Nistelrooy, and he never hit Buttner, even when he must have wanted to.
In that dinosaurs are fecking awesome and would be at the top of the food chain should they still be around then yes, he was.
Holy crap. So Fergie only ever won anything pre 2002 because he had better players than anyone else?
In his last two years out in Europe, yes. It was evident against Barcelona that we just couldn't cope with possession football and players putting pressure on our players in packs. However, I am sure he would have made more adjustments had we played Barcelona more regularly or if teams had that style of play in the Premier League.
It is not fair to judge the man by a small fraction of a long and successful career though. I voted for B, as he was IMO tactically one of the best in football history. Tactics are more than just formations (obviously), it is what the players do together as a group and how they position themselves relative to each other. I would point to the Carrick-Fletcher partnership as a great example of this.
It is not fair to judge the man by a small fraction of a long and successful career though. I voted for B, as he was IMO tactically one of the best in football history. Tactics are more than just formations (obviously), it is what the players do together as a group and how they position themselves relative to each other. I would point to the Carrick-Fletcher partnership as a great example of this.
Was Sir Alex's a tactical dinosaur? Absolutely!
For a tactical moron he did pretty well. 45 total trophies and that's not including the number of semis or quarter finals his teams appeared in. I wonder what that makes of all the other tactical geniuses.
For a tactical moron he did pretty well. 45 total trophies and that's not including the number of semis or quarter finals his teams appeared in. I wonder what that makes of all the other tactical geniuses.
So what did you vote in the poll (if you voted)? By the way I largely agree.
I'd say he was a managerial genius, but I wouldn't say he was a tactical genius at all.
Half of what you're talking about (knowing his players inside out, knowing who's in form, knowing when to move players on and take them out of the side) is general manager stuff, not tactical.
You say he knew how to deploy players to counter and trouble the opposition. Yes, but was he a 'genius' at this? Someone could easily argue that he generally had the best (or second best) group of players in England. And that his European record was underwhelming, given that he was one of the few managers to have extreme levels of continuity.
'He knew how to use subs'. Yes, but so do the majority of managers.
'When to go for it and when not to' - such as? he miscalculated things quite a bit, too.
I miss Sir Alex as much as the next fan, but while he's obviously a god of a manager, I think it's stretching it to say he was a tactical genius. And using his trophies as evidence/argument (as everyone is doing) doesn't really prove it.
C. He wasn't a dinosaur but I couldn't call him a tactical master either given tactics weren't as key to his approach as they are with some other coaches.
And what exactly would he have to do be regarded as such?
The man has been successful in 4 different decades. You don't do that by only being a good manager and giving nice talks. He's undoubtedly a tactical genius. I'd like to see some real evidence for suggesting he's not upto it tactically. And no, losing twice in the finals against a best club team in history doesn't count.
Tactically on a game to game basis no, but his philosophy was slowly becoming outdated towards the end of his tenure. He was ahead/top of his time for most of his career though.
I know that he is often regarded as a stubborn man who was rigid in his approach to the game but there were occasions during his tenure, such as 2007-08, when he showed hat he was willing to reinvent his tactical approach and adapt to changes in the game. This is one of the things that those who have worked with him and those who have been close with him in some capacity have actually commented about. As someone else pointed out here, to be that successful, you can't just rely on the one strategy to get you through. As far as his tactics in the last years of his management were concerned, perhaps he felt too tired to adapt to any new strategies and didn't feel his squad were up to doing the same so instead of making them versatile and exciting, he decided it would be best if they were more rigid and hard to break down.
I don't think he was ever tactically inept, was he heavily reliant on coaches? yes but he had the foresight to delegate to coaches whom he had a role in picking so for me that shows he was tactically quite advanced. I just think he was unable to appreciate the value of possession and that his tactical reading of the game, in terms of how to dominate a midfield against a big side which can keep the ball was slightly flawed.. but I think with age on his side, he would have cracked it.
For me where the problems began with Fergie was his age and growing sentimentality, he kept players and signed players who had no right to play for Manchester United.. and 2006 onwards, his signings became ever more questionable. His 'eye for a player' is what got worse and that is why we needed to move on from him, the ruthlessness wasn't quite there and when it did surface from time to time, that is when we saw some cracking decisions.. like isolating Rooney and that two-legged tie with Madrid which was Fergie at his best.
You look at the 94 United side and it would walk the league now, same could be said about the 99 side or the 08 side... these sides may have been 4-4-2 or whatever but they were athletic, technically gifted, full of flair... basically these sides possessed the hallmarks of championship winning sides and Fergie managed these teams brilliantly. It was just a shame that his standards began to drop with age.. guys like Scholes at 30+ would not have been kept on in the 90's era, he would have replaced them right away... guys like Valencia would never have got into the 90's sides.
That is why we have had to get rid of so many players, LVG hasn't put a foot wrong in terms of getting rid of the players he has.. in fact I would argue there are still quite a few first teasers who shouldn't even be here and that is the legacy of Fergies last few years. He took a very average group of players to the title and whilst it highlighted what a great manager he was in terms of getting the best out of a group of poor footballers .. at the same time it highlighted how much he had declined in certain facets of his managerial ability, i.e. his ruthlessness.. that squad was not a typical Fergie squad. He left us in a pretty poor position.
For me where the problems began with Fergie was his age and growing sentimentality, he kept players and signed players who had no right to play for Manchester United.. and 2006 onwards, his signings became ever more questionable. His 'eye for a player' is what got worse and that is why we needed to move on from him, the ruthlessness wasn't quite there and when it did surface from time to time, that is when we saw some cracking decisions.. like isolating Rooney and that two-legged tie with Madrid which was Fergie at his best.
You look at the 94 United side and it would walk the league now, same could be said about the 99 side or the 08 side... these sides may have been 4-4-2 or whatever but they were athletic, technically gifted, full of flair... basically these sides possessed the hallmarks of championship winning sides and Fergie managed these teams brilliantly. It was just a shame that his standards began to drop with age.. guys like Scholes at 30+ would not have been kept on in the 90's era, he would have replaced them right away... guys like Valencia would never have got into the 90's sides.
That is why we have had to get rid of so many players, LVG hasn't put a foot wrong in terms of getting rid of the players he has.. in fact I would argue there are still quite a few first teasers who shouldn't even be here and that is the legacy of Fergies last few years. He took a very average group of players to the title and whilst it highlighted what a great manager he was in terms of getting the best out of a group of poor footballers .. at the same time it highlighted how much he had declined in certain facets of his managerial ability, i.e. his ruthlessness.. that squad was not a typical Fergie squad. He left us in a pretty poor position.