Bob Paisley vs Sir Alex Ferguson

St Red said:
Liverpool were not the best team in England when Paisley took over, Leeds were, by far.
Look at their achievments in the 6 years prior to Paisley taking over at Anfield.
2 Uefa Cups
1 European cup Winners Cup
1 League Cup
1 FA Cup
2 League titles.

They also reached the European Cup semi final during that period, and European finals either side of that 6 year period.

Paisley turned a team that were challenging to be the best in England, into a team that were by far the best in England and Europe.
Click to expand...

but they only won the title twice and no European Cups. Even you lot won your "glorious treble" under Houllier but they were lesser cups.

I'd agree Leeds were the best side up to 74 or thereabouts, (but even then, didn't win that many titles) but Liverpool didn't have to deal with them after that because once Revie had left, they were never the same and they were your best years: after the decline of Leeds. There were some good teams after that but none were outstanding. Citeh, Ipswich, Doorby and then Forest, who were probably your only real threat. You had it pretty easy and you know it's true.:lol:

Can't deny though, Liverpool were a top class side then.
 
I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread, so apologies if my next point has come up already.

Everyone's talking about Ferguson and Paisley as who was the greatest in England/UK ever, I think this is fine. In 'greatest ever manager' debates Ferguson's name is always mentioned and rightly so. Yet when a Ferguson vs. Busby debate came up on the United forum only a month or so ago, the more sentimental said it was Busby who was United's greatest manager. I think my point is more to those who claimed Busby as the best, rather than to the topic here. For me the answer is just as easy in both situations - all of them are truly great, but Sir Alex Ferguson is the greatest.
 
Cling Bak said:
I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread, so apologies if my next point has come up already.

Everyone's talking about Ferguson and Paisley as who was the greatest in England/UK ever, I think this is fine. In 'greatest ever manager' debates Ferguson's name is always mentioned and rightly so. Yet when a Ferguson vs. Busby debate came up on the United forum only a month or so ago, the more sentimental said it was Busby who was United's greatest manager. I think my point is more to those who claimed Busby as the best, rather than to the topic here. For me the answer is just as easy in both situations - all of them are truly great, but Sir Alex Ferguson is the greatest.
Click to expand...

Is Ferguson the greatest? Could he have come through what Sir Matt did? Would he have taken the job in the first place at the time when Sir Matt was offered it? Aberdeen was ripe for the picking and he knew United had a fair bit wrong with it that wouldn't be a huge challenge to improve, just time to set the ball in motion. We had a bombed out ground and an ageing squad when Sir Matt took over. Different eras - it's like comparing Best and Ronaldo; we shouldn't compare them we should just be grateful for having had them at United.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Is Ferguson the greatest? Could he have come through what Sir Matt did? Would he have taken the job in the first place at the time when Sir Matt was offered it? Aberdeen was ripe for the picking and he knew United had a fair bit wrong with it that wouldn't be a huge challenge to improve, just time to set the ball in motion. We had a bombed out ground and an ageing squad when Sir Matt took over. Different eras - it's like comparing Best and Ronaldo; we shouldn't compare them we should just be grateful for having had them at United.
Click to expand...

Only my opinion. Sir Matt had different difficulties to face than Fergie and without him, Manchester United wouldn't be the same. As a manager, Ferguson would have been great wherever he went - his record in Scotland could show you that. My real point was the same one at the time in the Busby-Fergie thread: when we compare the best manager's ever, Fergie usually wins (not always I realise, but a lot of United fans would say it). When the debate about who United's greatest manager is, it becomes far closer as Busby becomes involved. A bit of generalisation I know, but just something I've noticed.

I think it's ok to compare, we're all in agreement that they're all brilliant.
 
green demon said:
You don't like Shankly do you? Leeds had gone off the boil, Liverpool had won the League, the UEFA Cup and FA Cup in the 12 months prior to Paisley taking over. FACT. Liverpool were comfortably the best team in England in 1974. FACT. Paisley took this team and improved on it. FACT.

Without the team being in such a position before he took over, he would not have achieved half as much. ALMOST CERTAINLY.

The fact that you quote Leeds' trophy winning history, when you've already said that the sheer number of trophies won proves nothing, is funny to be honest.

The fact that you chose to ignore the vast improvements Ferguson made to Aberdeen AND Manchester United, starting from a lower position in each case than Paisley did from his shows a remarkable case of :wenger: on your part.

Your previous arguments put together rather prove that Ferguson is comfortably the greater manager of the two.
Click to expand...

Leeds were favourites to win the league in 1973/74 and won it easily. They were clearly a stronger side than Liverpool although Liverpool were about to overtake them.
 
dicko said:
Leeds were favourites to win the league in 1973/74 and won it easily. They were clearly a stronger side than Liverpool although Liverpool were about to overtake them.
Click to expand...

It's almost like arguing Scolari took over a weak Chelsea squad because they won nothing last season. :rolleyes:
 
Mr. MUJAC said:
Seven of the same players in 1977!

I'd say that is inheriting a side!
Click to expand...

My argument (in 1981) was that Paisley's success was not PURELY due to inheriting Shankly's 1974 side. Six of that side were also in Liverpool's 1977 Euro side (Thompson missed out due to injury). By the following year Keegan had been replaced by Dalglish. Also added were Hansen, McDermott, Kennedy and Souness. That is why I argued Paisley was a great manager in his own right, not a mere continuation of Shankly's shadow.
 
Cal? said:
It's almost like arguing Scolari took over a weak Chelsea squad because they won nothing last season. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:lol: Good point.

Green Demon stated "Liverpool were comfortably the best team in England in 1974. FACT". However, at the start of 1973/74 Leeds were favourites to win the league and they won it easily.

Opinion might be divided about whether Leeds or Liverpool were the better side in 1974 but clearly Liverpool were not "comfortably the best".
 
dicko said:
Leeds were favourites to win the league in 1973/74 and won it easily. They were clearly a stronger side than Liverpool although Liverpool were about to overtake them.
Click to expand...

Liverpool were only five points behind Leeds and Derby (in third place) were another nine points behind Liverpool. This was clearly Leeds' swansong as the players had grown old together under Revie (the same happened to us at about the same time) and were never likely to be challenging again for the foreseeable future. They finished 9th the following season - does that make them the best team in England?

Liverpool who had won the title only the year before (as well as the UEFA Cup) and were clearly ahead of anyone else to take over Leeds' mantle as top team in England, also won the FA Cup 3-0 in the final against a decent Newcastle side.

Liverpool were clearly in the driving seat, although Derby pipped them to the next title as they were still feeling the benefits of a Clough reign which had finished only two years before. Liverpool were clearly the top team and the ones to beat. I've never argued that Paisley didn't improve things because he did, however it was easier taking over the top team than if they had been languishing like Aberdeen and United when Ferguson took them over.
 
dicko said:
:lol: Good point.

Green Demon stated "Liverpool were comfortably the best team in England in 1974. FACT". However, at the start of 1973/74 Leeds were favourites to win the league and they won it easily.

Opinion might be divided about whether Leeds or Liverpool were the better side in 1974 but clearly Liverpool were not "comfortably the best".
Click to expand...

See my answer above. We are talking about taking over for the 1974/75 season not the 1973.74 season.
 
Cling Bak said:
I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread, so apologies if my next point has come up already.

Everyone's talking about Ferguson and Paisley as who was the greatest in England/UK ever, I think this is fine. In 'greatest ever manager' debates Ferguson's name is always mentioned and rightly so. Yet when a Ferguson vs. Busby debate came up on the United forum only a month or so ago, the more sentimental said it was Busby who was United's greatest manager. I think my point is more to those who claimed Busby as the best, rather than to the topic here. For me the answer is just as easy in both situations - all of them are truly great, but Sir Alex Ferguson is the greatest.
Click to expand...

Busby was more than 30 years ago ;) and a special case. Who else rebuilt a team devastated by a disaster?
 
Cling Bak said:
Only my opinion. Sir Matt had different difficulties to face than Fergie and without him, Manchester United wouldn't be the same. As a manager, Ferguson would have been great wherever he went - his record in Scotland could show you that. My real point was the same one at the time in the Busby-Fergie thread: when we compare the best manager's ever, Fergie usually wins (not always I realise, but a lot of United fans would say it). When the debate about who United's greatest manager is, it becomes far closer as Busby becomes involved. A bit of generalisation I know, but just something I've noticed.

I think it's ok to compare, we're all in agreement that they're all brilliant.
Click to expand...

I think it's blind faith and young age as to any debate on the greatest manager - "every single one of us loves Alex Ferguson". We've only touched post war to with reference to Busby, Cloughie, Shankly, etc. so you have to throw Herbert Chapman into the debate for what he achieved at Huddersfield and Arsenal. It's like asking who is the greatest United player - you're going to get votes for all the ones of the last 15 years, the predictable Best, Law, Charlton, Edwards and Robson votes but few for the likes of Jack Rowley and co from Busby's first great side and unfortunately we've got virtually nil footage to judge Billy Meredith, Charlie Roberts and others on, only legend and text.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Great success with two different clubs in two different countries.

Won every single trophy there is to win, a number of times.

Managed to break up a duopoly in Scotland, whilst managed to keep United successful and the best team in the country over a period of 15 years, after rebuilding the club more or less from scratch.

No other manager has managed to achieve this over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

His achievements are undeniable. Paisley's record more than stands comparison albeit he was an older man when he took over and retired after 9 years, hence the bigger trophy haul. Nobody knows the effect Bob had on Shank's teams either, but one thing is true of them both, they couldn't half spot a player. This bollocks about United being a parochial club when Fergie took over is just that. His problem was the same as Rafa's now, he had a dominant force up the road and he took 7 years to overhaul it.

Clough in a different way is above them all, what he did was incredible. Shame he was such a horrible lman but what he achieved at forest willl never be seen again.
 
green demon said:
See my answer above. We are talking about taking over for the 1974/75 season not the 1973.74 season.
Click to expand...

I don't know who you mean by 'we', I assume you mean yourself. The point was about Paisley inheriting Shankly's team during the 1974 close season. 1973/74 is just as relevant.

I fully accept that Leeds were aging and 1973/74 was to be their last genuine title challenge. What I argue with is your statement "Liverpool were comfortably the best team in England in 1974. FACT".

To me, Paisley inherited a side that was among the best and turned them into comfortably the best. When he took over there were several possibilities to replace Leeds including Derby (!) and Ipswich (!!).

During his reign Paisley achieved a level of domination thought to be impossible in England. After his first season they won seven titles in nine years (a feat matched by us under SAF), although Paisley had retired before the last title. They also won three European Cups.

We could probably argue about this for weeks and get nowhere. Luckily, I am heading to Port Macquarie for a few days so my contribution will stop.
 
dicko said:
I don't know who you mean by 'we', I assume you mean yourself.
Click to expand...

I see why you call yourself Dicko! The thread has been about Paisley taking over at Liverpool and that was not in 1973/74. It was after that season ended, and if you weren't aware of what the thread had been discussing then you really shouldn't have joined in. Bye Dicko.
 
dicko said:
I don't know who you mean by 'we', I assume you mean yourself. The point was about Paisley inheriting Shankly's team during the 1974 close season. 1973/74 is just as relevant.

I fully accept that Leeds were aging and 1973/74 was to be their last genuine title challenge. What I argue with is your statement "Liverpool were comfortably the best team in England in 1974. FACT".

To me, Paisley inherited a side that was among the best and turned them into comfortably the best. When he took over there were several possibilities to replace Leeds including Derby (!) and Ipswich (!!).

During his reign Paisley achieved a level of domination thought to be impossible in England. After his first season they won seven titles in nine years (a feat matched by us under SAF), although Paisley had retired before the last title. They also won three European Cups.

We could probably argue about this for weeks and get nowhere. Luckily, I am heading to Port Macquarie for a few days so my contribution will stop.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother mate - they reckon it's gonna be pissing down
 
Murphman said:
His achievements are undeniable. Paisley's record more than stands comparison albeit he was an older man when he took over and retired after 9 years, hence the bigger trophy haul. Nobody knows the effect Bob had on Shank's teams either, but one thing is true of them both, they couldn't half spot a player. This bollocks about United being a parochial club when Fergie took over is just that. His problem was the same as Rafa's now, he had a dominant force up the road and he took 7 years to overhaul it.

Clough in a different way is above them all, what he did was incredible. Shame he was such a horrible lman but what he achieved at forest willl never be seen again.
Click to expand...

Clough also did the same with Derby, but never had the resources to sustain it as he would have had at United or Liverpool. If he hadn't been sacked at Leeds after 44 days he may have surpassed Revie's haul and done even better than he did at Forest.

A friend of mine (Liverpool fan :eek:) has just lent me a novel based on Clough's 44 days. I've only just started it but it promises to be quite good. If you can get hold of it it's called "The Damned United" by David Peace - probably worth a try.

Going back to your original point, I agree that Paisley was one of the very great managers and did so well in nine years, and that I've never denied.
 
green demon said:
Clough also did the same with Derby, but never had the resources to sustain it as he would have had at United or Liverpool. If he hadn't been sacked at Leeds after 44 days he may have surpassed Revie's haul and done even better than he did at Forest.

A friend of mine (Liverpool fan :eek:) has just lent me a novel based on Clough's 44 days. I've only just started it but it promises to be quite good. If you can get hold of it it's called "The Damned United" by David Peace - probably worth a try.

Going back to your original point, I agree that Paisley was one of the very great managers and did so well in nine years, and that I've never denied.
Click to expand...

I've read it, it's brilliant and they're making a film about it.
 
ha -Timothy Spall even looks a bit like Taylor.....talking of who, is often overlooked when talking of Clough. Didn't they have a spat and Clough didn't have the same success without him? Can't remember now, but he was certainly a huge part in Clough's success.

Was it Brighton, Cloughie went to? and couldn't do anything right without Taylor? Probably wasn't there long enough anyway but similar to Shanks/Paisley, how much was down to Taylor anyway?

It's really a bit silly, not to mention futile, trying to establish which who was the best manager. Different circumstances for each and can't possibly be directly compared.
 
Denis' cuff said:
Didn't they have a spat and Clough didn't have the same success without him? Can't remember now, but he was certainly a huge part in Clough's success.

Was it Brighton, Cloughie went to? and couldn't do anything right without Taylor?
Click to expand...

Clough and Taylor were at Brighton together when Leeds came knocking. Taylor stayed and Clough left for his 6 weeks in Leeds and then went to Forest. Taylor rejoined him at Forest for their glory years and then left, and it was only then they had their 'spat'.
 
Murphman said:
His achievements are undeniable. Paisley's record more than stands comparison albeit he was an older man when he took over and retired after 9 years, hence the bigger trophy haul. Nobody knows the effect Bob had on Shank's teams either, but one thing is true of them both, they couldn't half spot a player. This bollocks about United being a parochial club when Fergie took over is just that. His problem was the same as Rafa's now, he had a dominant force up the road and he took 7 years to overhaul it.

Clough in a different way is above them all, what he did was incredible. Shame he was such a horrible lman but what he achieved at forest willl never be seen again.
Click to expand...

Hm. So far only two have protested against the

"Alex Ferguson = Jock Stein + Bill Shankley + Bob Paisley" Theorem.

I think it's interesting, some of the arguments that pop up in these discussions, like:

"Paisley only had nine years space to win his trophies in (poor fellow)" - No, actually he had as long a time as Ferguson has had. He just spent a lot more time getting in a position to lead a team to success.

"Paisley is as great as Ferguson because he pulled the strings behind Shankley when building the team"+"Shankley is as great as Ferguson because he built the team, credit for Paisley's success is really due him". - Scousers' heads always explodes when these two comparisons meet.

"Paisley's winning percentage is better than Ferguson's" - Yeah, and each year someone like Ade Akinbiyi tops the "most goals per min" chart by the end of the season, after netting a rebound in their only 15 min sub apperance that season. A lot of players are league top scorers once. Extremely few are top scorers their entire career. Longevity of success IS the highest mark of a great manager, because many can acheive success, but only a few can both acheive AND sustain success.
 
Grande said:
Hm. So far only two have protested against the

"Alex Ferguson = Jock Stein + Bill Shankley + Bob Paisley" Theorem.

I think it's interesting, some of the arguments that pop up in these discussions, like:

"Paisley only had nine years space to win his trophies in (poor fellow)" - No, actually he had as long a time as Ferguson has had. He just spent a lot more time getting in a position to lead a team to success.

"Paisley is as great as Ferguson because he pulled the strings behind Shankley when building the team"+"Shankley is as great as Ferguson because he built the team, credit for Paisley's success is really due him". - Scousers' heads always explodes when these two comparisons meet.

"Paisley's winning percentage is better than Ferguson's" - Yeah, and each year someone like Ade Akinbiyi tops the "most goals per min" chart by the end of the season, after netting a rebound in their only 15 min sub apperance that season. A lot of players are league top scorers once. Extremely few are top scorers their entire career. Longevity of success IS the highest mark of a great manager, because many can acheive success, but only a few can both acheive AND sustain success.
Click to expand...

Thats because the suggestion was as ridiculous as your post :wenger:

They are both terrific managers.
Paisley was successful for all his time as a manger.
Ferguson took a while to find success, but has sustained it ever since.

Man Utd fans will all vote for Ferguson.
Liverpool fans will all vote for Paisley.
We'll still be debating this on page 100. Time to move on.

Oh, and Shankly has no e :D
 
St Red said:
Thats because the suggestion was as ridiculous as your post :wenger:

They are both terrific managers.
Paisley was successful for all his time as a manger.
Ferguson took a while to find success, but has sustained it ever since.

Man Utd fans will all vote for Ferguson.
Liverpool fans will all vote for Paisley.
We'll still be debating this on page 100. Time to move on.

Oh, and Shankly has no e :D
Click to expand...

:nono: Paisley is one of a whole group of terrific managers, Sir Alex is a god born to manage a football team.
 
St Red said:
Thats because the suggestion was as ridiculous as your post :wenger:

They are both terrific managers.
Paisley was successful for all his time as a manger.
Ferguson took a while to find success, but has sustained it ever since.

Man Utd fans will all vote for Ferguson.
Liverpool fans will all vote for Paisley.
We'll still be debating this on page 100. Time to move on.

Oh, and Shankly has no e :D
Click to expand...
Both terrific managers - agreed. So were Shankeley and Busby.
Paisly was successful for all his time as manager (apart from the long period where he was responsible for Shankley's team according to earlier comments you made).

Agree on the rest that we will vote for Ferguson and you will vote for Paisley. But I would add to that, of course, that we're right and you're wrong as always. :p
 
green demon said:
Both terrific managers - agreed. So were Shankeley and Busby.
Paisly was successful for all his time as manager (apart from the long period where he was responsible for Shankley's team according to earlier comments you made).

Agree on the rest that we will vote for Ferguson and you will vote for Paisley. But I would add to that, of course, that we're right and you're wrong as always. :p
Click to expand...


:lol: Nice try.

And it was your comment wasn't it? Where you said to me "You dont like Shankly do you"?
I didn't even grace that with an answer.

We're right.............................see you on page 10 ;)
 
St Red said:
Thats because the suggestion was as ridiculous as your post :wenger:

They are both terrific managers.
Paisley was successful for all his time as a manger.
Ferguson took a while to find success, but has sustained it ever since.

Man Utd fans will all vote for Ferguson.
Liverpool fans will all vote for Paisley.
We'll still be debating this on page 100. Time to move on.

Oh, and Shankly has no e :D
Click to expand...

That's because Liverpool fans are deluded.

Most football fans would vote for Sir Alex Ferguson.
 
Psmith said:
That's because Liverpool fans are deluded.

Most football fans would vote for Sir Alex Ferguson.
Click to expand...

it depends on the age group you ask. the fact that Paisley retired 25 years ago also might have something to do with it. That and the fact that Paisley wasnt a man that courted the media limelight, even when he was winning all before him he rarely gave interviews, appeared on telly or in the papers, and preferred to keep a low profile.
Its like you ask people now what the best group ever is and they'll say a band that is around now rather than one from the past.
 
Fred the bin dipper said:
it depends on the age group you ask. the fact that Paisley retired 25 years ago also might have something to do with it. That and the fact that Paisley wasnt a man that courted the media limelight, even when he was winning all before him he rarely gave interviews, appeared on telly or in the papers, and preferred to keep a low profile.
Its like you ask people now what the best group ever is and they'll say a band that is around now rather than one from the past.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that. If you ask the generation today who the greatest player ever was most of the clued up fans would say Maradona or Pele not Ronaldo or Messi.

In the same way most clued up fans would agree that Sir Alex is the greatest ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.