Just to play devil's advocate here. Shouldn't this thread be about Busby v Shankly as to who was the greatest manager of all time. Fergie & Paisley both took over decent sides, yet Busby had to rebuild a great team after the Munich tragedy, whilst Shankly inherited a bunch of players that couldn't even get out of division 2.
Bob Paisley vs Sir Alex Ferguson
- Thread starter 032Devil
- Start date
Do I? where did I say that then?
Fergusons reign has been well documented but there are many, even in this thread, who know little about Paisley's exploits
I know a lot about both of them as I have lived through it from start to finish and watched both take on huge jobs and achieve the greatest things.
Oh .......... and I can look at it a bit more objectively than many fans on here .....and not worry about the size of my balls
I stand by the fact that Liverpool were dominating in England at the time of Paisley's appointment and had won the European Cup. If they weren't the best in Europe, and that's subjective, they were damned close. I've not denied that Paisley was a very good manager, even great - he was! But I do believe that Shankly was greater as he laid the foundations of what you went on to achieve under Paisley. I'm still not saying that things didn't get even better under Paisley because they did.
Jones, Case and Fairclough are not necessarily names that I would use as examples of Paisley's greatness - Case and Fairclough were two good workmanlike players and I don't even remember Joey Jones except for his name. Dalglish, Hansen, Souness I'll grant were very decent players but Shankly had very decent players before Paisley took over. Ferguson had to clear out a lot of dead wood when he went to United as well.
Someone used the examples of how having big squads today makes Fergie a lesser manager. I remember that Liverpool were always feted as having a bigger squad than their rivals, with more strength in depth, so that cancels that accusation out. (However I also remember Liverpool winning the league one year with only using 15 or 17 players - I can't remember who was the manager then).
Fergie's record speaks for itself - and the only ones that come close are Busby and Shankly. Paisley, Stein, Clough, Chapman and Wenger are the ones I'd put in the second tier.
Paisley took over the team that was probably best in Europe, certainly in England but Ferguson took over a mid-table team who were winning the odd cup only.
Fergie also took on Aberdeen who were a nothing team and made them the best team in Scotland for a few years until he went South. And to put both Celtic's and Rangers' noses out of joint in Scotland is no mean feat.
In the end, it is like comparing the reign of great kings in the Middle Ages, clearly the one with the longer reign who won more was better, not thanking anything away from BS
I'm well aware of what Bob Paisley achieved in a short amount of time, his record was nothing short of amazing but I don't go by what's achieved in a certain period of time, I go by what's achieved overall and there's no question Sir Alex Ferguson is the greatest, he's the most successful manager in English football history. You could argue that Bob Paisley took over a team who were already on top of English football whereas Sir Alex had to start from scratch with Manchester United and he turned them into Champions again (not only of England, not only of Europe but also the world). He has turned Manchester United into arguably the biggest football club in the world. He has re-built the side several times over and is still successful to this very day, even when folk were questioning him a few years back. And of course, everybody knows his record with Aberdeen as well and how he managed to break the stranglehold that Celtic & Rangers had on the Scottish League, not to mention how he led them to a European victory over Real Madrid. I can't see his record ever being bettered by anyone else again.
Jose 
7 years as manager so far winning 12 trophies (4 league titles, 1 Champions League and 1 UEFA cup). Won back to back Premiership titles with a club that hadn't won the league for 50 years.
He has lost only one home league game in his entire 7 year managerial career and remains unbeaten for the last 6 years: 103 home league matches (38 with Porto, 60 with Chelsea and 5 so far with Inter).
7 years as manager so far winning 12 trophies (4 league titles, 1 Champions League and 1 UEFA cup). Won back to back Premiership titles with a club that hadn't won the league for 50 years.
He has lost only one home league game in his entire 7 year managerial career and remains unbeaten for the last 6 years: 103 home league matches (38 with Porto, 60 with Chelsea and 5 so far with Inter).
Jose
7 years as manager so far winning 12 trophies (4 league titles, 1 Champions League and 1 UEFA cup). Won back to back Premiership titles with a club that hadn't won the league for 50 years.
He has lost only one home league game in his entire 7 year managerial career and remains unbeaten for the last 6 years: 103 home league matches (38 with Porto, 60 with Chelsea and 5 so far with Inter).
Thread recently about this. His record is incredible - think it was worked out that should he carry on with that ratio or close he'll have won more than Ferguson in about 9 years time
It was pretty much the same bunch of players that hadn't finished lower than 4th the previous 2 or 3 seasons, & most were still there when United finished runners up to us in 1988. So it was hardly a team of no-marks.
Would it be churlish of me to mention the fact that since the golden era of Becks, Giggs & Scholes. SAF has had to constantly spend big bucks in order to win the big trophies ?. With the exception of Dalglish, whom he bought with the proceeds of the Keegan sale anyway. Paisley achieved success whilst pretty much on a financial level playing field as every other manager.
Paisley inherited Shankly's great side. When Fergie joined our side was full of pissheads. The season he took over we looked like relegation candidates. He had to change everything around.
Liverpool did not win the European Cup until Paisleys 3rd season in charge.
You're not trying to say otherwise are you?
Bollocks. Not one person has noted that Paisley was part of Shankly's management team throughout, and his right hand man for most of it.
Paisley "inherited" Shankly's team in one sense, but he had done an awful lot to help create it in the first place.
I love asking scousers to count how may knights of the realm they've had, but to be honest Paisley deserved to have been.
Using this flawed theory, does this mean he can lay claim to Shanklys honours?
Of course not.
Countless assistant managers take over and fail, so it wasn't a given fact that he would succeed.
You're perfectly right about the knighthood though.
No.
But he obviously had a contribution, and the extent of that contribution interests me, considering how much he improved the team when he took over.
Shankly's Liverpool was good, but no better than some others. Paisley's was, I hate to say it, out on it's own, head and shoulders above everyone else.
Just interesting.
He won trophies at Aberdeen with little money, the first six years he spent at our club each season he bought players for less than he sold - and then after he started winning silverware, he started to benefit from bigger budgets because of the prizemoney received.
There are two teams in our League that have spent more money that us over recent years gone by, I dont understand how people can say that Fergie's had to rely on money of late - do you really believe that he's forgotten how to manage and tries to disguise his by buying expenisve players who come in and look after themselves, hell no, these expensive players that come in probably require extra management to help aid their transfer & help fit into the team & help adapt mentality.
I dont really care if rival fans dislike him, but when they to try and discredit his achievements, it shows a distinct lack of integrity and a huge amount of jealousy - its ironic you talk about money really when you support Liverpool, a club crying out for Arab investors so that you can be given money, not earned, so that you can overtake Manchester United, even though you already have owners who are outspending us.
That's my old man's memory playing tricks on me - I could have sworn Shanks led Pool to their first one, I stand (or sit) corrected. I still say that the groundwork was done by Shanklly, although Paisley took them to new heights it wouldn't happened without Shankly. This new "information" rather puts Shankly behind Busby, and Paisley more on a par with Shanks.
I agree he should have been knighted, but it's great to see how much it hurts that he wasn't.
It is possible, of course, that he had been selected for it but turned it down because of the type of man he was. Correctly refusals of honours should not be made public.
Compare Paisley to Docherty and Sexton as they were in the same purchasing era.....and Liverpool have spent plenty of money to win their more recent trophies!
Paisley won the European Cup with seven of the same team that Shankly used to win the FA Cup in 1974. Apart from Case (Fairclough was never a regular first team player but used as a sub predominantly) he bought all his players regardless of cost.
The biggest difference was in the foundations.....
Shankly might not have developed a youth system but developed a managerial conveyor belt that kept the club going long after he left. For this reason Shankly was revolutionary....much more than Busby or Ferguson.
Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, Dalglish, Evans.......all followed a systemwhich worked for Liverpool.....once they stopped grooming backroom staff they lost continuity.
Busby based his legacy on a conveyor belt of youth products culminating in winning the European Cup in 1968 based predominately on home grown talent. When Busby and Murphy left....the system fell apart under O'Farrell and then Docherty.
Ferguson realised we needed to rebuild our youth system but needed time. He had to buy time so made some big name signings and started to blend youth into the system......four players in the 1990 FA Cup Final. Then as the system started to develop our team was virtually made up of youth players and he didn't spend that big at all for much of the 1990's in comparison to other competing teams.
I suppose if you want to look like for like.....then take Paisleys nine years where a winning foundation already existed and then take any nine year period of Ferguson's when the foundations were already in place.
So Ferguson.....1992 to 2001
7 Premierships, 3 FA Cup's, 4 European Trophies, 1 League Cup
Paisley.....1974 to 1983
6 League titles, 5 European titles, 3 League Cups
Now you are comparing like for like and can make up your own mind.
People talk about United buying success and about how much money Fergie spent to make United champions again after 26 years, but I'd just like to challenge that a little with a few stats.
Up until winning the league title in 1993, United had spent a total £14.34 mil (taking into account outgoing transfers), an average of £2.39 mil per season under Ferguson. During the same period, Liverpool spent £13.135 mil, or about £2.19 mil per season.
Also, up until the summer of 1997, by which point United had won 3 league titles and 3 FA Cups, United's net spending under Fergie was £12.085 mil. This averages to £1.1 mil per season.
Clearly United spent big money to become the dominant team in England, but Fergie was good at balancing his outlay with money for players sold. This has changed since 1998 when transfer fees got blown out of proportion, but it's interesting to look at his record.
Up until winning the league title in 1993, United had spent a total £14.34 mil (taking into account outgoing transfers), an average of £2.39 mil per season under Ferguson. During the same period, Liverpool spent £13.135 mil, or about £2.19 mil per season.
Also, up until the summer of 1997, by which point United had won 3 league titles and 3 FA Cups, United's net spending under Fergie was £12.085 mil. This averages to £1.1 mil per season.
Clearly United spent big money to become the dominant team in England, but Fergie was good at balancing his outlay with money for players sold. This has changed since 1998 when transfer fees got blown out of proportion, but it's interesting to look at his record.
When SAF retires he will be the remembered as the greatest football manager IMO.
then you are standing by a factually incorrect statement. Paisley took over in 1974, Liverpool won their first European Cup in 1977. we had also won only one league title in the previous 8 seasons, so it can hardly be said we were dominating the domestic game either
nice how you imply that all European trophies are equal, a European cup and a defunct Cup winners Cup or a Super Cup are not the same thing.
I dont want to get into an argument over who is best, because you lot will say Ferguson, and we'll say Paisley. But one thing Paisley did that Ferguson has never done is dominate Europe.
I see what you did there, I too don't wont to get into an argument. But a few things Fergie did that Paisley didn't is win the treble, didn't win things with three (it possible to argue 5) different generations at the same club, didn't have to manage millionaires.nice how you imply that the EC in it's old format is equal to the new format
well its swings and roundabouts. easier to qualify for, harder to win now, whereas it was harder to qualify for and easier to win once you qualified before. much of a muchness in my opinion. after all, if it was so easy to win in the old foremat, how come you lot only managed to do once?
Because we were not as good as we would have liked to have been back then, and as we've pointed out many times in this thread - that's another reason why Fergie did so well. He pulled United out of a long slumber when occasional FA Cups (three in total) were all our silverware.
Going back to your previous correction, I have already admitted my error on Europe but Liverpool had won the League in 1973, the UEFA Cup in the same year, the FA Cup in 1974. Perfectly set up by Shankly for a successor, especially one who knew the team as well as an inside man.
But if you want to persist in saying that Shankly wasn't actually very good, then that's your privelige as a Liverpool fan. However, as much as I was pissed off by his success I had to admit he was a great manager, so I differ from you there.
Paisley inherited a successful side....SAF had to rebuild a team...nuff said...
having said that I have an awful lot of respect for Paisley, Shankly,Clough,Stein, Sir Matt and of course SAF......SAF is imo the last of this breed......kinda saddens me to think about them fading away...
having said that I have an awful lot of respect for Paisley, Shankly,Clough,Stein, Sir Matt and of course SAF......SAF is imo the last of this breed......kinda saddens me to think about them fading away...
persist in saying Shankly wasnt that good? where have i said that? i was just pulling you for being a bell.
Another moronic rambling from the resident spastic!
Winning the old European cup was easy compared to the CL with the draw being more intense, those were the times when winning the UEFA cup was more tough. Its really a no brainer there.
Your reasoning that Fergie had infintely more amount money and a bigger squad to choose from hence Clough was better is utter garbage.
Clough shipped in players at Forest and broke all transfer records compared to Fergie whose big buys were few and far between.
Get your facts right.
how many times did United win this easy trophy?
Once when it had more crediblity.
We werent the league champions then else we would've sliced through the butter.
Your beat up some mickey mouse teams in board games and pride yourself for dominating Europe
Longevity should not be dismissed. No matter how much "spin" Liverpool supporters try to put on it anyone whose lasted 22+ years at one of the worlds biggest clubs, whilst delivering a trophy haul dwarfling any other in the English game, should clearly be considered the better manager than someone who lasted a lot less and won a lot less.
Exactly SAF is comfortably the greatest manager the world has seen.
There's no doubt about that.
Using your logic for the league, is it far easier to win the Premier League than the old First Division.
Given that since the inception of the sky league, only 4 teams can realistically win it.
In fact, with the exception of Blackburns win, only you and Arsenal really challenged for it until 2005 when Chelsea won the lottery.
The Premier League has become similar to the SPL in that 80% of the teams in the league have no chance of winning it.
By contrast in the old Division One prior to our dominance, you had teams like Derby,Arsenal, Leeds, Man City. FFS, even Spurs and Ipswich won it in the 60's.
Even once our dominant period had started Forrest, Villa and Everton won the league.
So before demeaning the old European Cup, and our wins in it, look at the 2 horse race the premier League has become.
Did Shankly really do more than Revie, who also started in division 2 and had a fairly similar record with Leeds? Busby achieved more than either of them.
....also, Busby's career didn't start after the Munich crash. He'd built two great sides by then. The Munich side were his 2nd great side. He built up his first after the war when we didn't even have a ground. They only won two titles and a cup because they were all getting on a bit. He then built the Babes team and then the 60s side.
Don't know how you can be arsed having this argument again Fred.
Well thats the league Celtic play in did you expect him to have won 9 in a row with celtic in England? The truth is he turned Celtic into the best team in Europe without doubt, first British team to win Europeon cup, he would have won the league in England with his teams no doubt you moron so stop judging the standard of Scottish football today with 30 years ago.
He now seems to be getting the most enigmatic talent in the world - Zlatan to perform consistently.
Also, I doubt any other manager can pull off a nickname like 'the Special One'
Imo the Champs league is now a second rate comp compared to the old knock out format. Yes i'd love to win it another 100 times to have bragging rights but, imo its been lessened by letting teams that don't win their own leagues into the competition and also by having a league format inside the comp where imo in leagues the cream always come to the top, this is proven by the teams in the champs league format.