Why Fergie's disciples make average managers

[Treble]

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.

Not true for the likes of Michels, Cruyff, Sacchi, Guardiola. There is a reason why the likes of Michels have genius followers whereas pragmatic managers don't. Man management, charisma, leadership. etc. is much more difficult to teach than tactics.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

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 he believed in.

Spot on.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

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.

Yes you do. It's impossible to win as much as Fergie did by not being a great tactician. I'm not saying he was the best tactician football has seen but he was definitely great. We're talking about arguably the greatest manager of all time who managed to have unbelievable success over different eras in football. He was a one of a kind.

 

[Revan]

Yes you do. It's impossible to win as much as Fergie did by not being a great tactician. I'm not saying he was the best tactician football has seen but he was definitely great. We're talking about arguably the greatest manager of all time who managed to have unbelievable success over different eras in football. He was a one of a kind.

We were actually tactically poor until 2003 or so. Del Bosque even called United a side that plays chaotic football after they defeated us in Europe yet another time. Even the match against Bayern was an one off, we could have easily lost 3-0.

With the arrival of Queiroz, we improved tactically, and Fergie started giving more attention to that side of the game, not surprisingly we also achieved our best every success in Europe (semis in 2007, winners in 2008, final in 2009, quarters in 2010, final in 2011).

You didn't need to be tactically great (or even particularly good) to win league titles in England, which was a league were tactics were poor (especially compared to Italy and Spain). Just have good attackers and motivate them. Obviously things changed in the middle of last decade with the arrivals of really good tactical coaches in Mourinho and Benitez to name a couple. Fergie like always adapted and we raised our game a level.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Top managers are highly intelligent people away from football, the likes of Ferguson Wenger or Mourinho could hold a room with their insight and charisma, the likes of Bruce, Giggs, Robson, Ince etc are dimwits

 

[Ish]

Not to sound too technical, but I can’t quite see the link between the 2 - albeit I agree that great followers don’t always make great leaders.

Reason we can’t tell whether there’s a link or not is purely because of the lack of conclusive evidence. Being a great manager is such a rare trait. How many top players/leaders go on to make great managers?

Of course a lot of SAF’s players would go on to management purely because of the success they had as players - they’d get offers thinking they learnt from the great man. But management doesn’t translate in that way.

 

[11101]

Not true for the likes of Michels, Cruyff, Sacchi, Guardiola. There is a reason why the likes of Michels have genius followers whereas pragmatic managers don't. Man management, charisma, leadership. etc. is much more difficult to teach than tactics.

All of those managers are/were masters of getting their players to do what they wanted. What the actual instructions were came second.

 

[Treble]

All of those managers are/were masters of getting their players to do what they wanted. What the actual instructions were came second.

The point was different though: that those who are great tactical minds are more likely to have great disciples than those who are not. Fergie was a very clever manager and a good tactician but he wasn't famous for any tactical innovations and didn't have a core of footballing principles which can form the basis of highly successful tactics today.

Fergie trumps the others in terms of longevity and ability to rebuild teams at the same club which is unparalleled in history. But, unlike a core of tactical principles, this outstanding quality is not something which can be teached and learned. Hence it's quite natural that there is a lineage of great tactical minds and coaches like Michels, Cruyff, Guardiola and that there won't be one involving Fergie. Which doesn't diminish his unique ability and achievements.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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

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

There's simply a huge list of mediocre managers.

How many elite managers are there in the World?

 

[Noc-Z]

Because much of what made Fergie great can't be learned. It's just in the man. It's in his character. There have been lots of managers as tactically astute as he was but they don't have his fighting spirit or his character.

 

[WolfInSharp'sClothing]

There's simply a huge list of mediocre managers.

How many elite managers are there in the World?

Yeah, spot on.

Bruce, Robson, Hughes, Strachan, Giggs, Solskjaer, Stam, Blanc, even Phil Neville may be seen as just mediocre managers, but they are all highly successful managers in the grand scheme of things. Anyone that manages Internationally or regularly in the highest league division in their country has to be classed as a successful manager!

As you say, it's the elite managers that are a rarity and there are probably only about 10 in the whole world.

The likes of Gary Neville and Scholes are the only real 'failed' managers.

Ince and Keane are strange ones. They were good enough to be given the opportunity, but toxic enough for no one else to want them! I'd probably have them as failures too, but not in the same category as G. Nev and Scholes.

There's also a list of successful assistants/coaches from the Fergie years; McClair, Anderson, Phelan, Carrick, Butt and van Nistelrooy, amongst others.

As a percentage of players that become managers or continue to work in football, it has to be very high in comparison to other famous managerial eras.

 

[GBBQ]

There's simply a huge list of mediocre managers.

How many elite managers are there in the World?

Yeah exactly, the way management is, 99% are set up to fail at some point and there are only ever a handful of elite managers at any one time. The rest are just treading water. The fact that a few of them have won promotions or cups would suggest they are above average (if ultimately underwhelming).

 

[Volumiza]

Because much of what made Fergie great can't be learned. It's just in the man. It's in his character.

This is the same in all of life. True leadership, whether in the world of football or normal working environments can't be learned. It is a nuance of character. Something that makes people want to follow and perform for them and go above and beyond. Not everyone is an inspirational character who makes people stop and listen when they talk, Fergie was. He is an interesting and driven guy with an abnormal work ethic that even people outside of football, in other sports and in the professional workplace recognise and want to listen to.

Tactics are of course beneficial but that needs to be coupled with that extra ingredient and not everyone is blessed with it. There will never be another Fergie, but there will be other great managers and leaders, we just have to find one.

 

[JB7]

Am I seriously seeing suggestions that a man who won 3 league championships (75% of their historic titles) and at European trophy with Aberdeen, joined a club that hadn't won the league in over 25 years and turned them into the most dominant club in the country with 13 league titles (65% of our historical titles) in 26 years, seeing off challenges from supposed tactical greats such as Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez to name but 3, as well as Chelsea and City giving various managers blank cheques to buy success, wasn't himself "tactically great"?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

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

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

Most managers in general are what you deem to be average managers. Non average managers as per your definition are a complete anomaly.

 

[Treble]

Am I seriously seeing suggestions that a man who won 3 league championships (75% of their historic titles) and at European trophy with Aberdeen, joined a club that hadn't won the league in over 25 years and turned them into the most dominant club in the country with 13 league titles (65% of our historical titles) in 26 years, seeing off challenges from supposed tactical greats such as Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez to name but 3, as well as Chelsea and City giving various managers blank cheques to buy success, wasn't himself "tactically great"?

Fergie wasn't a great tactical mind in the sense that he didn't change football tactically wise. That's common sense. He was really smart and ingenious but he did not revolutionise tactics. When you see U-14 teams and women's teams all over the world try to play from the back and not concede possession cheaply, you know what a revolutionary impact looks like. Fergie was unparalleled in his longevity, hunger and ability to win again and again but he wasn't a tactical genius. Actually, he needed help from Queiroz to create his arguably best team (2008).

 

[Noc-Z]

Something that makes people want to follow and perform for them and go above and beyond.

And this is partly why we've seen such a drop off in performance. We always had average players in the squad, but Fergie somehow got title winning performances out of them.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah, spot on.

Bruce, Robson, Hughes, Strachan, Giggs, Solskjaer, Stam, Blanc, even Phil Neville may be seen as just mediocre managers, but they are all highly successful managers in the grand scheme of things. Anyone that manages Internationally or regularly in the highest league division in their country has to be classed as a successful manager!

As you say, it's the elite managers that are a rarity and there are probably only about 10 in the whole world.

The likes of Gary Neville and Scholes are the only real 'failed' managers.

Ince and Keane are strange ones. They were good enough to be given the opportunity, but toxic enough for no one else to want them! I'd probably have them as failures too, but not in the same category as G. Nev and Scholes.

There's also a list of successful assistants/coaches from the Fergie years; McClair, Anderson, Phelan, Carrick, Butt and van Nistelrooy, amongst others.

As a percentage of players that become managers or continue to work in football, it has to be very high in comparison to other famous managerial eras.

Blanc wasn't mediocre and has no business being mixed with the others.

 

[Volumiza]

Am I seriously seeing suggestions that a man who won 3 league championships (75% of their historic titles) and at European trophy with Aberdeen, joined a club that hadn't won the league in over 25 years and turned them into the most dominant club in the country with 13 league titles (65% of our historical titles) in 26 years, seeing off challenges from supposed tactical greats such as Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez to name but 3, as well as Chelsea and City giving various managers blank cheques to buy success, wasn't himself "tactically great"?

Crazy isn't it. Of course Fergie was a great tactician but not one of the 'chess player' type of tacticians. Fergie was just fantastic at building teams and motivating them. Amazing that he 'motivated' his last title winning team to the title in his last year ... sheer force of will. There wasn't much tactics going on that year apart from papering over the cracks in a pretty ramshackle squad.

 

[Jimmy_Bond]

The answer is quite simple. "Statistical Probability."

In the world there are probably less than ten "elite level" managers.

There are thousands of managers.

 

[Treble]

Note that Klopp was influenced by Sacchi who was influenced by Michels. Basically, many of the great tactical minds of the last 30 years were (in)direct followers of Michels. His tactical ideas were and continue to be incredibly fertile.

 

[Jimmy_Bond]

Crazy isn't it. Of course Fergie was a great tactician but not one of the 'chess player' type of tacticians. Fergie was just fantastic at building teams and motivating them. Amazing that he 'motivated' his last title winning team to the title in his last year ... sheer force of will. There wasn't much tactics going on that year apart from papering over the cracks in a pretty ramshackle squad.

I think it is a prejudice that literally comes down to his nationality.

People seem to think he just shouted really loud in Scottish and frightened people into becoming the most dominant club in English football history.

If he was Italian, people would see him as the greatest tactician of all time.

 

[WolfInSharp'sClothing]

Blanc wasn't mediocre and has no business being mixed with the others.

He's probably the best out of that lot, but he's not elite just yet though is he?

Certainly has the potential to be and could be a future United manager.

 

[JPRouve]

He's probably the best out of that lot, but he's not elite just yet though is he?

Certainly has the potential to be and could be a future United manager.

There is a fair margin between not elite and mediocre. But even then we are talking about a manager who completely turned Bordeaux around and made them good enough to win titles and reach the CL QF with distinctly average players(and I'm being kind). He then managed a bad french team and made them play well while fixing disciplinary issues and he is currently the best manager that PSG had in the Qatari era. He has no business being compared with the managers that you mentioned.

 

[WolfInSharp'sClothing]

There is a fair margin between not elite and mediocre. But even then we are talking about a manager who completely turned Bordeaux around and made them good enough to win titles and reach the CL QF with distinctly average players(and I'm being kind). He then managed a bad french team and made play well while fixing disciplinary issues and he is currently the best manager that PSG had in the Qatari era. He has no business being compared with the managers that you mentioned.

You're right. He's the only one on that list that has (and probably ever will) won a league title.

My point that the managers I mentioned were often seen as mediocre (I didn't say they were), where in the grand scheme of things they are actually all highly successful. Of all the managers ever to manage a football team at any level, they are probably amongst the top 10%.

Some of them are obviously more successful than others, Blanc being head and shoulders the most successful of that bunch.

 

[Lentwood]

It would surprise me more if there was a positive correlation comparing the skills of ex-players in management to their former managers

It's far more likely, especially given the demands of the modern role, that people from outside of football altogether would do a good job. Anybody skilled in managing people and delegating should be far more qualified than some brainless numpty who's only qualification is 'ex-player'

 

[Striker10]

you need a lot of luck sometimes. Great players don't automatically make great managers and many players can take instructions but the whole process of thinking and creating an environment isn't always there. Sir Alex had luck but also the ability and the time and we got the momentum and he built on it and rebuilt.