Why Fergie's disciples make average managers

[Skills]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's the same reason why Fergie himself loved these players.

Lets use someone like Gary Neville as an example - if Sir Alex Ferguson asked him to jump, he's the type of person who would ask how high? I can imagine a control freak like Ferguson, loving this type of personality. Someone willing to do anything and everything he asked, without questioning or challenging his thought process behind it. Even Roy Keane for 99% of United career fell in that category, and as soon as he questioned or challenged Sir Alex on anything he was forced out of the door.

However, this type of personality doesn't translate into actually being the manager or the real leader (not just as Fergie's enforcer in the dressing room). Great followers don't necessarily make great leaders. This is where you have to show a bit of ingenuity, as it's impossible to copy & paste someone else's blueprint and try to implement it like-for-like by yourself.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm not really sure there is a connection. Maradona was a shit manager. Many great individualists are.

 

[tomaldinho1]

It's more that society saw their incredible successes as players as some kind of golden ticket that would magically translate into management. It sometimes worked, where the motivational side (think Keane at Sunderland) played a key factor but i's more that it's a completely different job and generally I think it just lead to unqualified appointments.

 

[Garethw]

I'm not really sure there is a connection. Maradona was a shit manager. Many great individualists are.

Keane, Robson, Bruce, Hughes, Neville, Scholes, Solskjær, Strachan, Giggs.

That’s a huge list of former Fergie players that are mediocre managers.

 

[Eric7C]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's the same reason why Fergie himself loved these players.

Lets use someone like Gary Neville as an example - if Sir Alex Ferguson asked him to jump, he's the type of person who would ask how high? I can imagine a control freak like Ferguson, loving this type of personality. Someone willing to do anything and everything he asked, without questioning or challenging his thought process behind it. Even Roy Keane for 99% of United career fell in that category, and as soon as he questioned or challenged Sir Alex on anything he was forced out of the door.

However, this type of personality doesn't translate into actually being the manager or the real leader (not just as Fergie's enforcer in the dressing room). Great followers don't necessarily make great leaders. This is where you have to show a bit of ingenuity, as it's impossible to copy & paste someone else's blueprint and try to implement it like-for-like by yourself.

I have to call BS on this. Ferguson loved Cantona. If you asked Cantona to jump, he would deck you.

 

[Greck]

Management is a talent that isn't easily emulated. Like charisma and leadership it's always obvious who it doesn't come natural to no matter how they emulate it

 

[redshaw]

It's the same anywhere. Most players and the very top ones often fail and aren't cut out for management having played under successful managers. We can go through AC Milan, Liverpool and back to Bobby Charlton.

A lot said Roy Keane would be a top manager one day after playing under Clough and Fergie and being an instrumental midfielder but he hasn't picked up anything. He can't even analyze a portion of a game. He's just naturally good in the moment on the pitch.

With management there's so many things you just can't pass on. One thing is the top managers are reading and reacting to what's going on, telling players where to be and getting it right most times. You can't pick this up generally just by watching and hearing it happen while being a sub for example.

 

[Green_Red]

Great leadership is underpinned by high emotional intelligence. The ability to influence those around us is a skill that is unique and which many people struggle with, even perfectionists and high achievers often lack the emotional intelligence to make good leaders. Leadership is more than just setting examples and being a hard worker. I would be willing to bet that Ferguson would score very highly on an emotional inventory assessment. I suspect that's why many people perceive him as a father figure. The exactly right balance between disciplinarian and influencer. That's why he was able to get all those great players and egos pulling in the direction he wanted them to.

 

[devilish]

He made management look simple.

He did all the thinking for them so they would only focus on playing and he inflated their belief their abilities to the ridiculous. That was perfect for foot soldiers in the midst of battle but it hindered the development of their critical mind. Managers like Lippi created players able to think. That risked them questioning his methods and challenge him. Sir Alex built a religion were zealots go into the deep end no questions asked.

 

[gajender]

Keane, Robson, Bruce, Hughes, Neville, Scholes, Solskjær, Strachan, Giggs.

That’s a huge list of former Fergie players that are mediocre managers.

Is there any manager whose players have done well in management not like one off example but several players who have played under certain great manager for long period and have subsequently done well in management.

 

[stevoc]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's the same reason why Fergie himself loved these players.

Lets use someone like Gary Neville as an example - if Sir Alex Ferguson asked him to jump, he's the type of person who would ask how high? I can imagine a control freak like Ferguson, loving this type of personality. Someone willing to do anything and everything he asked, without questioning or challenging his thought process behind it. Even Roy Keane for 99% of United career fell in that category, and as soon as he questioned or challenged Sir Alex on anything he was forced out of the door.

However, this type of personality doesn't translate into actually being the manager or the real leader (not just as Fergie's enforcer in the dressing room). Great followers don't necessarily make great leaders. This is where you have to show a bit of ingenuity, as it's impossible to copy & paste someone else's blueprint and try to implement it like-for-like by yourself.

So you seem to be saying people who can follow orders don’t make good leaders?

The worlds militaries are obviously not aware of this. If it were true they would be promoting insubordinate soldiers up to the rank of colonel/general instead of lower ranked officers who have followed orders for years.

Ince was a bit of a rebel who I doubt always followed orders unquestionably. He isn’t a great manager.

PS Keane wasn’t shown the door the first time he questioned Ferguson. In the recent Q&A Keane and Neville mentioned there had been other times. But the difference was he was too good to be allowed to leave. But by 2005 he wasn’t that important anymore.

 

[Gio]

If anything, Ferguson has a high proportion of ex-players who have become managers, particularly from his Aberdeen and early teams at United. And a number of those have had some success in their post-playing careers (McLeish, Strachan) and even the likes of Hughes and Keane had a decent stock a decade or so ago.

Ultimately very few high-profile ex-players become unquestionable successes. Most of these managers have relatively short careers before their methods becomes outdated as they inevitably go with what was successful during their own playing career. Coming from a successful background, they lack the appetite to develop and adapt their approach to take account of a changing game. And many just aren't cut out for management, lacking the smarts to analyse, plan and take strategic decisions. While plenty get jobs beyond their station, secured largely as a result of their success as a player but with little regard of their ability to carry out an entirely different job.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

Is there any manager whose players have done well in management not like one off example but several players who have played under certain great manager for long period and have subsequently done well in management.

Simone and pep seem to be doing well.

 

[gajender]

Simone and pep seem to be doing well.

These are examples of ex players who have done well in management, not the excellent players turned managers who played under the same manager during their playing career.

 

[devilish]

Is there any manager whose players have done well in management not like one off example but several players who have played under certain great manager for long period and have subsequently done well in management.

Lippi. Conte, Zidane, Deschamps, Carrera, vialli
Sacchi: Capello (2nd in command), Ancelotti, Rijkaard, donadoni

 

[Vanya]

I think there are multiple reasons for it. One of them could be that Fergie himself wasnt a great tactician, he was more of a man manager and probably the best at that. The players Fergie has coached are also good man managers but dont have a distinct philosophy of football. They all talk about fast wingers, giving your all on the field, playing for the badge etc. but these are general ideas not really tactics of football.

Coaches like Cryuff, Bielsa, Guardiola who have clear tactics and philosophy will inspire more budding coaches than Ferguson type managers IMO.

 

[Raees]

The big issue has been that Fergie was tactically never quite the best and it was his man management which made him the best. He relied on assistants to modernise his sides tactically and make them more ‘Continental’.

That meant his players were ill adapted to the rigours of modern day ‘coaching’ especially the British and Irish contingent. It’s not really a ‘managers’ game anymore it’s about how well you can coach your side and Fergie barely coached his sides compared to a Cruyff. His players therefore idolised his approach and thought they could be ‘Managers’ without needing to develop their coaching skills despite failing to acknowledge he knew his limitations and adapted the support team around him - not to mention his charisma was on another level as was his understanding of what makes players tick.

Do you remember when Neville spoke about Quieroz training them for the game against Barca in 2008 and laughing at how boring it was but it got the job done.. he didn’t really seem to get why such attention to detail was important and how he should have taken that on board for his own coaching career.

Guys like Cruyff and Van Gaal they created a culture of deep thinking about the game, made players think about why you make certain decisions on the pitch and encouraged players to philosophise about the game. Modern game is built largely on Cruyffian/Michel principles and it has been a series of work by players who played for Ajax/Barca/Holland. These players were forced to think, experiment and appreciate different types of coaching and the methodology behind it. That prepared them for being able to transmit timeless principles on to future generations.

I think the United players would have discussed games etc but not with the same intellectual curiosity and it would have been a very British way of thinking about the game. You get the vibe that not any of them seem to be able to read the game as well as a Pep or be able to put in the hard yards coaching wise.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

I think there are multiple reasons for it. One of them could be that Fergie himself wasnt a great tactician, he was more of a man manager and probably the best at that. The players Fergie has coached are also good man managers but dont have a distinct philosophy of football. They all talk about fast wingers, giving your all on the field, playing for the badge etc. but these are general ideas not really tactics of football.

Coaches like Cryuff, Bielsa, Guardiola who have clear tactics and philosophy will inspire more budding coaches than Ferguson type managers IMO.

This has to be the biggest myth in football. You don't win 13 league titles and two European Cups by not being a great tactician. He was much more than a man manager.

 

[Treble]

Is there any manager whose players have done well in management not like one off example but several players who have played under certain great manager for long period and have subsequently done well in management.

Cruyff had several players who became good managers: Guardiola, Koeman, Laudrup. Cruyff himself was a disciple of Michels. Michels and Cruyff had a footballing philosophy which players could learn and develop further. Fergie was more pragmatic, in particular later in his career.

Edit: what Raees wrote above.

 

[Red_toad]

Disciples? A few of his former players couldn’t stand Sir Alex and played under other managers! So we pin any player who may have played under him as a disciple? What a load of bulls whack.

Sir Alex didn’t prime anyone for management, he was their manager and chose no one from his ex playing staff to succeed him.

 

[Skills]

The big issue has been that Fergie was tactically never quite the best and it was his man management which made him the best. He relied on assistants to modernise his sides tactically and make them more ‘Continental’.

That meant his players were ill adapted to the rigours of modern day ‘coaching’ especially the British and Irish contingent. It’s not really a ‘managers’ game anymore it’s about how well you can coach your side and Fergie barely coached his sides compared to a Cruyff. His players therefore idolised his approach and thought they could be ‘Managers’ without needing to develop their coaching skills despite failing to acknowledge he knew his limitations and adapted the support team around him - not to mention his charisma was on another level as was his understanding of what makes players tick.

Do you remember when Neville spoke about Quieroz training them for the game against Barca in 2008 and laughing at how boring it was but it got the job done.. he didn’t really seem to get why such attention to detail was important and how he should have taken that on board for his own coaching career.

Guys like Cruyff and Van Gaal they created a culture of deep thinking about the game, made players think about why you make certain decisions on the pitch and encouraged players to philosophise about the game. Modern game is built largely on Cruyffian/Michel principles and it has been a series of work by players who played for Ajax/Barca/Holland.

I think the United players would have discussed games etc but not with the same intellectual curiosity and it would have been a very British way of thinking about the game. You get the vibe that not any of them seem to be able to read the game as well as a Pep or be able to put in the hard yards coaching wise.

I think this is harsh on Ferguson. I think he was quite obviously a fantastic coach, and it was only in his last 4-5 seasons that he gave up some of the day-to-day training (not to the degree that people seem to think though).

I would say Fergie towards the end of his career, was more a sporting director than a manager - but a sporting director who retained a lot of match day influence.

The problem with that role now is, the best coaches in the world will not want to coach in such a limited capacity. They'll want full match day control + training - which is what makes the modern day head coach. You can't hire a Klopp or a Guardiola, could you please coach our team for us but Ole will still have most of the matchday influence. Even Queiroz eventually left because he wanted a bit more influence.

 

[Raees]

I think this is harsh on Ferguson. I think he was quite obviously a fantastic coach, and it was only in his last 4-5 seasons that he gave up some of the day-to-day training (not to the degree that people seem to think though).

I would say Fergie towards the end of his career, was more a sporting director than a manager - but a sporting director who retained a lot of match day influence.

The problem with that role now is, the best coaches in the world will not want to coach in such a limited capacity. They'll want full match day control + training - which is what makes the modern day head coach. You can't hire a Klopp or a Guardiola, could you please coach our team for us but Ole will still have most of the matchday influence. Even Queiroz eventually left because he wanted a bit more influence.

Read several ex players bios and even read Fergies and very rarely do you get a feel for any regular tactical insights Fergie had or philosophy on the game. Coaching was obviously done but you here more about how someone like Harrison had a massive impact on the coaching front whereas you don’t get much said about how Fergies training drills and how he improved players technically was top drawer.

The culture you associate with United is completely different to a Pep bio or books on Cruyff or total football etc.

 

[Revan]

This has to be the biggest myth in football. You don't win 13 league titles and two European Cups by not being a great tactician. He was much more than a man manager.

You don't need to be a great tactician to win leagues, it is enough to have better player and have a great manager coaching them. Tactics are mostly important when you go against teams better than you, when you need to make a system whcih works against superior teams, and SAF was not great at it. Not poor, but definitely not a great tactician. We were underdogs in Europe, and he has a negative record against almost every top manager.

 

[Vanya]

This has to be the biggest myth in football. You don't win 13 league titles and two European Cups by not being a great tactician. He was much more than a man manager.

Its not a myth. i guess the truth is in the grey area. No ones saying that he was Only a man manager. Of course he wasnt a dinosaur and neither were his assistants who contributed a lot to the style of play. but IMO fergie came up short in europe many times because of his deficiencies as a tactician.

 

[stevoc]

Its not a myth. i guess the truth is in the grey area. No ones saying that he was Only a man manager. Of course he wasnt a dinosaur and neither were his assistants who contributed a lot to the style of play. but IMO fergie came up short in europe many times because of his deficiencies as a tactician.

Yeah it definitely isn't black and white, while i don't think Ferguson was the greatest tactician he was still one of the best. You don't win what he did by just being ok at tactics.

During the 90's in europe our failures were in my opinion largely more down to ideology than just tactics alone. Ferguson believed in playing football a certain way and didn't want to adopt more pragmatic tactics to counter certain opponents. Now in hindsight this probably cost us in 97, 98, 00 and 01 against Dortmund, Monaco, Real and Bayern respectively. So starting in 2001 we seen a change in Ferguson willing to adapt more to the opposition. We bought Veron and started playing 3 men in midfield way more. We also hired Queiroz to help introduce a style of football more geared towards European football.

Despite a few hiccups in the early years while he was rebuilding this was largely successful as we reached 3 finals in 4 years winning one and if not for coming up against the best club side ever we probably would have won 3. But the 2 finals we lost were arguably also lost because of Fergusons ideology having not been abandoned completely. We didn't approach either final vs Barcelona with the more pragmatic approach we employed in the Semi finals against them in 2008. Ferguson said himself in the lead up to the 2011 final that he believed it wouldn't be right for Manchester United to play defensively in a European final and that they would go out and play their own attacking game. Bobby Charlton said similar if i remember correctly. Now the 09 final was closer than some remember and that was before everyone maybe realized just how good that Barca team were and we were the current Champions so going out and attacking them wasn't that crazy an idea. But in 2011 by making that same decision he almost certainly knew we would lose and yet he did it anyway because thats what he believed in.

 

[ivaldo]

Which manager has seen his disciples go on to have great success?

 

[billybee99]

You don't need to be a great tactician to win leagues, it is enough to have better player and have a great manager coaching them. Tactics are mostly important when you go against teams better than you, when you need to make a system whcih works against superior teams, and SAF was not great at it. Not poor, but definitely not a great tactician. We were underdogs in Europe, and he has a negative record against almost every top manager.

Um...you mean like winning SPL with Aberdeen over Celtic and Rangers?

 

[Andrew~]

Don’t think it has anything to do with Fergie, managing a football club is really hard that’s all.

 

[Tyrion]

Keane, Robson, Bruce, Hughes, Neville, Scholes, Solskjær, Strachan, Giggs.

That’s a huge list of former Fergie players that are mediocre managers.

Compared to who? Crjyuff had a load of good former players who became good managers but aside from him, how many managers spawned half a league's worth of good managers? I don't get what's the issue here. Because a lot of his former players became managers and weren't great, is it his fault even though someone like Wenger hasn't had anywhere near the same amount of ex players become managers so SAF is ahead if anything.

What's special about SAF here? I don't think OGS is up to it either (I assume that sentiment is where this is coming from) but if anything being a former SAF manager seems to make you more likely to become a manager than not compared to other managers.

 

[Denis79]

Being a footballer and being a manager are two very different things, some have the talent for it and some don't. I don't believe that because you played under a certain manager makes you a good or bad manager later on. The managers mentioned might have been motivated to continue their careers in that path because of SAF but their skill has very little to do with him, even if some of them try to emulate him.

 

[Tarrou]

Great managers are rare. That’s all there is to it.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

First of all, it’s not called disciples. It’s not like they were coached to be a football manager. They were coached to be top footballer.

Second, Sir Alex has natural talent & skills in his man management and it’s not easy to replica him by just doing a hair dryer treatment.

Third, yes Sir Alex was never a crazy tactician. Players like Rooney & Carrick were impressed & have mentioned of how very detail & tactical LVG was. Sir Alex couldn’t beat Pep twice, of course I believe he can beat him once or twice but probably after a few defeats just like how he did it to Jose Mourinho.

Last thing, Sir Alex was still good coach & tactician. He has lot of variety in his style, he doesn’t stick with one or two philosophy. He can adapt with different system in order to get the best out of players he got. However, compare to those crazy tactician, his system is more simple & old school. Manager like Cruyff, Pep & LVG are manager who stick with their principles with a lot of detail and they need the right players to make it works & understand how it works.

Even with old school style, I believe Sir Alex can still be a successful in this modern football. His man management skills & ability to adapt lot of systems to suit his players & being unpredictable are enough to win something in modern football.

 

[SportingCP96]

I don't know if this belongs in the "weird feelings in football thread" but I find that the best players tend to be some of the worst managers where as the worst players or even guys who never played professionally tend to be the. best managers.

 

[Sky1981]

Managerial skill is a talent
Football ability is a talent

Both are different sets of skill. Trained differently.

An ace navy seal doesnt make a great general because he's taught to kill, while a general taught to tell people to kill. Its a two different set.

Footballers that makes great managers happens uniquely to just have these 2 talents together.

 

[thepolice123]

Keane, Robson, Bruce, Hughes, Neville, Scholes, Solskjær, Strachan, Giggs.

That’s a huge list of former Fergie players that are mediocre managers.

When's the last time we actually had a top drawer British manager?

 

[liamp]

I wouldn't look at his former players, I would look at his former coaches. Queiroz achieved individual success with Iran after United, but failed at his biggest jobs (Real and Portugal). Kidd's been successful, but has always been an assistant and was shit for Blackburn the one year he stepped up to manager. Maclaren's probably the best of the lot.

Either way, the Fergie coaching tree isn't very impressive.

 

[tenpoless]

Considering how complex football management is, I wouldn't agree to this statement unless if everyone of Sir Alex's disciples have had a managerial career. The sample size is too small and it's hard to achieve great things as a manager if you manage a small team.

But yeah, Gary would make a bang average manager. Maybe will even get the sack in less that a season.

 

[Sky1981]

I wouldn't look at his former players, I would look at his former coaches. Queiroz achieved individual success with Iran after United, but failed at his biggest jobs (Real and Portugal). Kidd's been successful, but has always been an assistant and was shit for Blackburn the one year he stepped up to manager. Maclaren's probably the best of the lot.

Either way, the Fergie coaching tree isn't very impressive.

You cant train passion. Determination and charisma.

Fergie also probably made a deal with the devil.

 

[Thaila-X]

Interesting thread. I don't think there is any set recipe for what makes a player a good manager. I'd bet you can ask someone of the best players in the world how they do what they do and some would be able to give a detailed breakdown of why they do what they do in a certain way and others won't be able to answer it coherently as it is just their instincts. Working under a genius like Fergie is obviously going to increase anyone's footballing knowledge, but I don't necessarily think having a great manager and being part of a successful team is always the best way to learn. Sometimes, you need to experience the slumps in form and failures to learn how to overcome them, every manager will have different ways of doing this and exposure to that is a key experience in my eyes.

Same goes for players who spend the bulk of their career under one manager or 'system' personally, I think exposure to several different styles and managers is better in some ways as you can learn what worked for one manager at one club, won't necessarily work at his next club but there will be certain things you're able to take from each manager. A lot can be read into how tactically minded Sir Alex was but his system evolved over the year and he adapted constantly to bring success whilst also getting the best out of the vast majority of players that passed through the doors at OT. Another factor to consider is that player power is a lot stronger these days in a lot of dressing rooms, it's often said that Brian Clough wouldn't be able to cope in the current climate where players and agents hold so much power, that's where individual personalities come into the equation and how to manage massive egos.

 

[11101]

I think it's much more simple. The best managers are the ones who nail the man management side. Whether you can do that or not has nothing to do with previous success in football. The tactical side comes second.


Fergie's players were also raised in a way that does not work in today's highly paid world where players are wrapped in cotton wool from the age of 10. That style of management ended 20 years ago and Ferguson was only able to keep doing it because of who he was.