Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[Nori-]

Well this takes the cake. Maybe, just maybe Fergie can see that whereas the Glazers are far from great owners, we can't blame our failure on the lack of spending? Maybe unlike fans like you, he understands that the game is about much more than spending money? We have beaten City to multiple players because the Glazers sanctioned it. We literally took their targets because we offered more money and wages. The Glazers are bad owners because they made bad decisions on the footballing side of the club but they haven't spent less than anyone. I think Fergie has the right to choose who he sits next to because also, maybe the great man knows a bit more than you and me about the running of the club and what goes on behind the scenes.

Nothing lasts in football, especially in England where the landscape is extremely competitive. Dominance came in periods and no one could sustain it. Liverpool went off the grid for over two decades after being the most successful club in the land. We had two periods of success in our entire history with a lot of mediocrity inbetween. That never happens because of some conspiracy, it's just that it's a very competitive footballing nation that attract lot of money and talent and bad decisions will cost you at some point. A man in his '80s who forgot about football more than you or I will ever know maybe can rise above this pettiness and select his company as he chooses.

This is a massive cop out, you are making excuses for him. Lack of spending was never the issue, I have not said that. They have sucked a BILLION dollars out of the club, not spent a penny of their own money, all while letting our infrastructure falls decades behind. Clubs like Spurs who were mid table now have stadiums that put us to shame. Many other clubs are also in the process of modernising for building new stadiums.

Also, money aside, the general running of the club has been awful. One of City's biggest strengths has been behind the scenes. "Footballing" minds in crucial positions at the club, they know what is needed to get to the top. The glazers have hired "business people". People whose main concerned is marketing and money flow.

Fergie knew how to run a club, he wasn't only a manager, he did 5-6 diifferent peoples jobs. So he more than anyone would know how badly we are being run. Yet continues to collect his monthly wage and smile.

 

[Theonas]

This is a massive cop out, you are making excuses for him. Lack of spending was never the issue, I have not said that. They have sucked a BILLION dollars out of the club, not spent a penny of their own money, all while letting our infrastructure falls decades behind. Clubs like Spurs who were mid table now have stadiums that put us to shame. Many other clubs are also in the process of modernising for building new stadiums.

Also, money aside, the general running of the club has been awful. One of City's biggest strengths has been behind the scenes. "Footballing" minds in crucial positions at the club, they know what is needed to get to the top. The glazers have hired "business people". People whose main concerned is marketing and money flow.

Fergie knew how to run a club, he wasn't only a manager, he did 5-6 diifferent peoples jobs. So he more than anyone would know how badly we are being run. Yet continues to collect his monthly wage and smile.

You are describing what I wrote. My point is that this is not a reason to be all angry and vengeful from the point of an 80 year old man as you seem to be. The man did more for a club than anyone could dream of. He probably understands that the club was being ran in a very outdated way when he left. No elite club in Europe was ran the way Manchester United was back in 2013, it was as you say a one man operation with the great man himself doing 5 or 6 jobs as you say. That was the price of the success we had and the Glazers undoubtly failed to mitigate that and build a new sustainable structure. That doesn't mean that two people who worked together for years and enjoyed success together will suddenly become enemies and that Fergie will go on a crusade against them at his age.

 

[NixxxoN]

Pep is one of the biggest brains in football.

What I mean by this is, as a player he had no physical qualities whatsoever. He was not fast, nor strong, nothing. His football was all about intelligence, knowing what to do, where to pass, making the best possible decisions, thinking ahead of the rivals, and so on.
Now, being a choach, he is translating his knowledge and tactics to his great bunch of players who also have physical qualities... add hard work to the mix (he is really hard worker, a football maniac) and the result is you have an incredibly strong package overall.

We can argue about if he only took great teams, or very financially strong, or whatever, but regardless of that, he is an incredibly good manager, and regardless if you like him/his football style or not.

 

[united_99]

Is that not part of supporting a club? You argue the case of why your manager is the best, why your history is the most special? Its not a case forcing anyone to do anything.

My argument on that point was, we do our part, its almost a duty as a supporter but at what point do you say, ok I'm defending someone who couldn't give a sh*t about us or the club.

In regards to Fergie the argument being a car crash, I have a question for you. At what point are we allowed to start criticising him? If he came out tomorrow and said he thinks the Glazers are great and supports them staying, is that the breaking point? Who decides when his untouchable status becomes touchable.

For me that breaking point has come recently. The club as at a massive cross road and not only will Fergie keep quiet, he is happy to be the smiling face sat next to them at matches.

I mean no, you only argue / defend something which is important to you / you believe in / you care about.
After all not all our fans defend all our players or managers.
I also believe Madrid are the biggest club in the world. So I won’t just write essays claiming United are the biggest. There are several more examples.
Also United fans have criticised Fergie a lot, including when he was active. Don’t know where it comes from that he is untouchable.
I don’t know what you want. He spent relatively little in his last few years and still kept being successful. As a result his successors had almost unlimited money and wasted it. That’s not his fault. It’s down to his successes over two decades that even after a decade of mediocrity two parties are prepared to buy us for 5 billion.

It seems you are just frustrated because of City’s success and have decided to blame Fergie for it.

 

[justboy68]

Below is the team of Euro 2020. How many of them do you consider world class?

https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/histo...fa-euro-2020-team-of-the-tournament-revealed/

Jorginho actually won player of the tournament and many don't even think he is more than merely decent

I'm not really seeing your point. Of course to be world class you have to do it over a sustained period. Obviously Iniesta did do that and surely as he made the team of the tournament in Euro 2008 it's fair to say he started to show it around that time?

 

[jm99]

Well this takes the cake. Maybe, just maybe Fergie can see that whereas the Glazers are far from great owners, we can't blame our failure on the lack of spending? Maybe unlike fans like you, he understands that the game is about much more than spending money? We have beaten City to multiple players because the Glazers sanctioned it. We literally took their targets because we offered more money and wages. The Glazers are bad owners because they made bad decisions on the footballing side of the club but they haven't spent less than anyone. I think Fergie has the right to choose who he sits next to because also, maybe the great man knows a bit more than you and me about the running of the club and what goes on behind the scenes.

Nothing lasts in football, especially in England where the landscape is extremely competitive. Dominance came in periods and no one could sustain it. Liverpool went off the grid for over two decades after being the most successful club in the land. We had two periods of success in our entire history with a lot of mediocrity inbetween. That never happens because of some conspiracy, it's just that it's a very competitive footballing nation that attract lot of money and talent and bad decisions will cost you at some point. A man in his '80s who forgot about football more than you or I will ever know maybe can rise above this pettiness and select his company as he chooses.

This totally ignores the period between 08-13 where their total lack of investment allowed the rot to set in. We sold the best player in the world for a record fee and the replacement was 16m on Valencia and Michael Owen on a free. We had to rely on players who were getting older and older like ferdinand, vidic and evra, who were all absolutely done by moyes' first season. We had to play two nearly 40 year olds in centre midfield.

Yes they've invested since Fergie retired, but if they hadn't been so stingy during fergie's last 5 years then we'd have been in a much better place. Look at the difference in quality between us at the end of moyes' first season and City and it doesn't really matter that we've spent comparable amounts because we've been continually having to patch up holes in a weak side and City we're adding players to a title winning team. It's so reductive to look at the money spent over the last decade by each side and conclude that money isn't the issue when it very much is

 

[Zehner]

Money or not, there is no second coach who hast such an impact on his teams.

It is a bit similar to Messi: Yes, he always played alongside other stars but when you actually watch him, you know he's incredible with or without them. The same is true for Guardiola. When you see his teams play football, it is crystal clear that there's a genius at work. How organized they are, the automatisms, etc. The only coach I've seen who comes close is Klopp but even he isn't quite up there.

Which is why I never quite got the "he is only successful because of his spending" arguments. He'd obviously have a similar impact on a worse team, it's just that the best usually work with the best.

 

[NLunited]

He wasn't being that gracious towards Fergie when he bragged about destroying us in the CL finals, the bald cnut. Great manager though, certainly the greatest innovator the game has seen. He's pretty much invented the false nine and false full-back positions hasn't he?

No he did not invent those positions, they have been around forever. Neither did he invent juego de position.

 

[NLunited]

Could you please name examples of players or managers who voluntarily took a challenge similar to what you're suggesting? I mean from a position where they can have their pick.

I‘m inclined to say Ten Hag. Going from Ajax who was doing well in CL to Man United who were in shambles, is a demotion sportswise. Although the potential at MU is as high as it gets, it was a big challenge to take on.

Remember pundits predicted us to finish outside the top four on average, and Ten Hag overperformed.

Casemiro.

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

Julia broke our hearts

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[jm99]

Money or not, there is no second coach who hast such an impact on his teams.

It is a bit similar to Messi: Yes, he always played alongside other stars but when you actually watch him, you know he's incredible with or without them. The same is true for Guardiola. When you see his teams play football, it is crystal clear that there's a genius at work. How organized they are, the automatisms, etc. The only coach I've seen who comes close is Klopp but even he isn't quite up there.

Which is why I never quite got the "he is only successful because of his spending" arguments. He'd obviously have a similar impact on a worse team, it's just that the best usually work with the best.

Isn't there the argument that heynckes did a better job with bayern and Enrique did a better job with Barca? Might be a bit controversial the second one, but the MSN side had a much harder run to the champions league final than Barca under pep did

 

[dpansheth]

nop.

For him to be considered in top 3 coaches then he has to prove that he can overcome adversity. he has not done that.
Pick any great coach of last 100 years, each & every one of them proved they can go and win against all odds.

Pep's teams always have odds with them. No Bueno

 

[Moriarty]

Yeah, with Hidegkuti as a false 9 and it confused the heck out of the English. Also Austria used it with Sindelar in the 1930's apparently.

My dad told me about that Hungarian side and how they took England apart at Wembley and later, in Budapest. It happened before I was born but I've seen footage and the commentators were amazed at what was unfolding before their eyes. They were full of praise for the victors. The defeat in Budapest was even worse 1-7 and it wasn't that much later that England got dumped out of the World Cup by the USA.

 

[njred]

So now that everyone pretty much agrees that Pep is now established as the best ever, who will come up through the ranks? I mean it’s going to take decades for anyone to match him even though he did all of this in 14 years.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

nop.

For him to be considered in top 3 coaches then he has to prove that he can overcome adversity. he has not done that.
Pick any great coach of last 100 years, each & every one of them proved they can go and win against all odds.

Pep's teams always have odds with them. No Bueno

When has Ancelotti done this?

 

[jm99]

When has Ancelotti done this?

I'd say last season, Madrid likely weren't favourites in any of their knockout ties except maybe Chelsea and they won all of them.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Isn't there the argument that heynckes did a better job with bayern and Enrique did a better job with Barca? Might be a bit controversial the second one, but the MSN side had a much harder run to the champions league final than Barca under pep did

Which time? No argument really holds up there. Pep won the Champions League twice with Barca, Enrique won it once, Pep won three La Liga titles, Enrique won two, Pep never did worse than the Champions League semi-finals, Enrique lost in the quarters twice, including his final time not even scoring a goal. Pep won 14 out of 19 possible trophies.

 

[harms]

My dad told me about that Hungarian side and how they took England apart at Wembley and later, in Budapest. It happened before I was born but I've seen footage and the commentators were amazed at what was unfolding before their eyes. They were full of praise for the victors. The defeat in Budapest was even worse 1-7 and it wasn't that much later that England got dumped out of the World Cup by the USA.

Yeah, that game was truly legendary. England thought that they were invincible before it (and not without reason) only to get outclassed in such a way... at home, at Wembley!
The full game is available by the way – on footballia website amongst other sources.

 

[Theonas]

I‘m inclined to say Ten Hag. Going from Ajax who was doing well in CL to Man United who were in shambles, is a demotion sportswise. Although the potential at MU is as high as it gets, it was a big challenge to take on.

Remember pundits predicted us to finish outside the top four on average, and Ten Hag overperformed.

Casemiro.

We are most definitely a demotion from Ajax. We play in a league where relegation candidates can be managed by the likes of Ancelotti, Emery and Benitez for goodness sake. That's like saying Mourinho's move from Porto to Chelsea was a demotion because at the time Chelsea were a small fish.

Casemiro is an interesting one, but it's fairly well documented that he didn't fancy being phased out with less playing time with the emergence of Tchouaméni and Camavinga. It would be a good shout if he made this move 3 or 4 years ago but not at 30 after he'd already won 5 CLs.

We don't really have to overcomplicate things. Managers work at a lower level because that's how most of them have to start to build a CV. The second they get the chance at a club that offer them better conditions and more finances and potential, they don't turn it down. If their career take a hit, they might go back down a level like Ancelotti did with Everton or Rafa with Newcastle but they jump right back up to the top like Ancelotti did when he got the Real Madrid call. He didn't go "ah wait, I've never proven that I can save a team from relegation and work in these conditions, and I already won few CLs so I'll stick it out here to prove myself". Pep is lucky that someone higher up offered him a big job before he was proven, same happened to Lampard, Solskjaer and Pirlo but none of them took the opportunity the way he did.

 

[dpansheth]

When has Ancelotti done this?

I'd say last season, Madrid likely weren't favourites in any of their knockout ties except maybe Chelsea and they won all of them.

He had many great cup runs over last 2 decades or so.
But you agree compared to other coaches?.

 

[jm99]

Which time? No argument really holds up there. Pep won the Champions League twice with Barca, Enrique won it once, Pep won three La Liga titles, Enrique won two, Pep never did worse than the Champions League semi-finals, Enrique lost in the quarters twice, including his final time not even scoring a goal. Pep won 14 out of 19 possible trophies.

Well particularly the 10-11 season. Arsenal, shaktar, real and us. Apart from real, none of those sides were particularly strong, we were in our phase where the Glazers weren't spending a penny, we'd sold Ronaldo, not signed tevez, berbatov had declined so much he didn't even make the team at Wembley.

By comparison the 14-15 run was man city, psg, bayern and juventus. Which is a far harder run. My point was more that these teams like bayern and Barca even if you say pep did better with them, the season after pep left they got 100 points in la liga and Enrique won a treble a few years later. So was it really pep's genius that won these titles or was it the quality of the teams?

 

[Theonas]

This totally ignores the period between 08-13 where their total lack of investment allowed the rot to set in. We sold the best player in the world for a record fee and the replacement was 16m on Valencia and Michael Owen on a free. We had to rely on players who were getting older and older like ferdinand, vidic and evra, who were all absolutely done by moyes' first season. We had to play two nearly 40 year olds in centre midfield.

Yes they've invested since Fergie retired, but if they hadn't been so stingy during fergie's last 5 years then we'd have been in a much better place. Look at the difference in quality between us at the end of moyes' first season and City and it doesn't really matter that we've spent comparable amounts because we've been continually having to patch up holes in a weak side and City we're adding players to a title winning team. It's so reductive to look at the money spent over the last decade by each side and conclude that money isn't the issue when it very much is

That is nothing but a fan theory. Fergie said what he said at the time and it's only fans who choose to believe he was covering for the Glazers. Why would he? It makes more sense to me and it fits his pattern from years previous, that he genuinely did not see value in the foreign export that Chelsea and City were bringing to the league. This is a man who almost exclusively spent big money locally from Keane, Ince, Cole, Rooney, Rio, Berbatov to Van Persie. His biggest spending from abroad was probably RvN and Veron, I really can't think of anyone else. He famously relied on his instincts when it came to transfers and our scouting system was famously outdated as found by managers after him.

Chelsea and City came in and started buying players of a profile that Fergie never shown interested in. When it came to the best locally, we still beat City to the signature to Van Persie and that was in 2012. So, no, I don't think Fergie was lying for the Glazers, I think that was his way of working and he had no reason to change it since he was still winning league titles and making CL finals. The Glazers mistake is that they thought somebody else can just come in and replace him without anticipating that they had to change the entire structure for the club to move on with the times, and not this conspiracy theory that they refused to back Fergie in something he never shown much interest for in his entire career.

 

[jm99]

That is nothing but a fan theory. Fergie said what he said at the time and it's only fans who choose to believe he was covering for the Glazers. Why would he? It makes more sense to me and it fits his pattern from years previous, that he genuinely did not see value in the foreign export that Chelsea and City were bringing to the league. This is a man who almost exclusively spent big money locally from Keane, Ince, Cole, Rooney, Rio, Berbatov to Van Persie. His biggest spending from abroad was probably RvN and Veron, I really can't think of anyone else. He famously relied on his instincts when it came to transfers and our scouting system was famously outdated as found by managers after him.

Chelsea and City came in and started buying players of a profile that Fergie never shown interested in. When it came to the best locally, we still beat City to the signature to Van Persie and that was in 2012. So, no, I don't think Fergie was lying for the Glazers, I think that was his way of working and he had no reason to change it since he was still winning league titles and making CL finals. The Glazers mistake is that they thought somebody else can just come in and replace him without anticipating that they had to change the entire structure for the club to move on with the times, and not this conspiracy theory that they refused to back Fergie in something he never shown much interest for in his entire career.

Fergie was adaptable, he would have seen the way things were changing with Chelsea and City and responded. He did bring in Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tevez all from abroad which led to our most successful season. But you think for some reason after selling Ronaldo for a world record fee he decided not to properly replace him and it just so happened to coincide with the period where debt repayments and interest were at its highest?

 

[Theonas]

I'd say last season, Madrid likely weren't favourites in any of their knockout ties except maybe Chelsea and they won all of them.

They weren't favorites because they weren't playing great football, not because they were lacking in resources and quality. Would it be better if a coach plays inferior football just so they can win from an underdog position? It's Real Madrid for goodness sake, they have some of the most expensive players in the world and have the biggest name in football, they're never winning against the odds. When Ancelotti was at Everton or Napoli, what did he exactly achieve?

 

[united_99]

That is nothing but a fan theory. Fergie said what he said at the time and it's only fans who choose to believe he was covering for the Glazers. Why would he? It makes more sense to me and it fits his pattern from years previous, that he genuinely did not see value in the foreign export that Chelsea and City were bringing to the league. This is a man who almost exclusively spent big money locally from Keane, Ince, Cole, Rooney, Rio, Berbatov to Van Persie. His biggest spending from abroad was probably RvN and Veron, I really can't think of anyone else. He famously relied on his instincts when it came to transfers and our scouting system was famously outdated as found by managers after him.

Chelsea and City came in and started buying players of a profile that Fergie never shown interested in. When it came to the best locally, we still beat City to the signature to Van Persie and that was in 2012. So, no, I don't think Fergie was lying for the Glazers, I think that was his way of working and he had no reason to change it since he was still winning league titles and making CL finals. The Glazers mistake is that they thought somebody else can just come in and replace him without anticipating that they had to change the entire structure for the club to move on with the times, and not this conspiracy theory that they refused to back Fergie in something he never shown much interest for in his entire career.

Stam, Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, DdG (that’s only the expensive ones). He also wanted Batistuta, David Villa, Hazard.
But either he didn’t want us to pay Hazard’s agent fee and high wages or the Glazers declined.
Our scouting was also not bad, Evra, Vidic, Chicarito.
It will probably never be clear why we didn’t spend more from 2008-2013. But this he didn’t want to buy from other leagues seems very odd and doesn’t make sense based on the players we bought and were interested in.
Of course he also loved British players, that goes without saying.

 

[Theonas]

Fergie was adaptable, he would have seen the way things were changing with Chelsea and City and responded. He did bring in Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tevez all from abroad which led to our most successful season. But you think for some reason after selling Ronaldo for a world record fee he decided not to properly replace him and it just so happened to coincide with the period where debt repayments and interest were at its highest?

All those players you mention did follow his pattern. 2 young and upcoming youngesters for decent fees. It was also a time when because of Queiroz, we explored the Portuguese market more. Hargreaves is an English player and Tevez was playing for West Ham and it was a loan move.

This is not about adapting, it's about the structure of a club. There was a reason Arsenal bought a lot from France and why Barcelona and Real have an almost monopoly on the South American market. It's about scouts and connections. When Chelsea and later on City became competitive, they had modern scouting systems and hired foreign sporting people that gave them better access to the best players from other leagues. We were set up differently, Fergie relied mostly on his personal judgment and his son's. Queiroz contributed a bit later on with his Portuguese connections but largely, our system was outdated. Fergie was not going to change that in the latter years of his career especially when what he was doing was winning him things.

 

[jm99]

All those players you mention did follow his pattern. 2 young and upcoming youngesters for decent fees. It was also a time when because of Queiroz, we explored the Portuguese market more. Hargreaves is an English player and Tevez was playing for West Ham and it was a loan move.

This is not about adapting, it's about the structure of a club. There was a reason Arsenal bought a lot from France and why Barcelona and Real have an almost monopoly on the South American market. It's about scouts and connections. When Chelsea and later on City became competitive, they had modern scouting systems and hired foreign sporting people that gave them better access to the best players from other leagues. We were set up differently, Fergie relied mostly on his personal judgment and his son's. Queiroz contributed a bit later on with his Portuguese connections but largely, our system was outdated. Fergie was not going to change that in the latter years of his career especially when what he was doing was winning him things.

So you think that fergie, a guy who for 20 years continually rebuilt his sides and had young players coming through, was happy leaving a squad that basically needed replacements in every single position apart from goalkeeper?

 

[Theonas]

Stam, Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, DdG (that’s only the expensive ones). He also wanted Batistuta, David Villa, Hazard.
But either he didn’t want us to pay Hazard’s agent fee and high wages or the Glazers declined.
Our scouting was also not bad, Evra, Vidic, Chicarito.
It will probably never be clear why we didn’t spend more from 2008-2013. But this he didn’t want to buy from other leagues seems very odd and doesn’t make sense based on the players we bought and were interested in.
Of course he also loved British players, that goes without saying.

All the players you mention except Stam were for very average fees. Hargreaves was playing abroad but he was still English. My point is that Fergie relied a lot on his instincts and personal judgment of players. That naturally meant he felt more comfortable high numbers for British based players or ones who were in the league or ones from cultures that were fairly close like Scandinavia or Netherlands. It was not until Queiroz came in the picture that we invested in the Portuguese league when he had another sounding board when it comes to transfers. The others like Evra or Vidic were small fees worth the punt.

This is obviously not an exact science but my point is there might be exceptions but you see a general pattern in how Fergie conducted his transfers throughout his 27 years at the club. He might have admired big name players like Batistuta or Ronaldo but he just was not comfortable spending big money on someone like Hazard or Yaya Touré or Agüero. Even when he did, it was in small numbers and never the majority of his summer business.

 

[Theonas]

So you think that fergie, a guy who for 20 years continually rebuilt his sides and had young players coming through, was happy leaving a squad that basically needed replacements in every single position apart from goalkeeper?

From his point of view, that side won him the league and from his point of view, the likes of Smalling and Jones were good enough to come in and continue the success. I read his book when he spoke about that final in 2011. He said he knew he couldn't compete with the brand of football Barcelona were showing and the intensity they played with using defenders like Rio and Vida. He wrote that he needed faster more mobile players that can play higher up, hence Jones and Smalling were being moulded to shape a new style with the likes of Kagawa, Anderson and Cleverley. Remember that amazing start to a season we had in 2012? When we beat Arsenal 8/2 with these players. That was apparently his vision for the future. He felt that team with the addition of a Bale, Fàbregas or Kroos if I remember correctly, should be able to win another CL. I know it sounds crazy in hindsight but we did not look all that bad in that period to be fair. We weren't as good as we'd been with Cristiano but who would? We still looked a very good side that just needed some fine tuning. Little did we know that half the reason it was good, was the man himself. He didn't know either.

 

[united_99]

All the players you mention except Stam were for very average fees. Hargreaves was playing abroad but he was still English. My point is that Fergie relied a lot on his instincts and personal judgment of players. That naturally meant he felt more comfortable high numbers for British based players or ones who were in the league or ones from cultures that were fairly close like Scandinavia or Netherlands. It was not until Queiroz came in the picture that we invested in the Portuguese league when he had another sounding board when it comes to transfers. The others like Evra or Vidic were small fees worth the punt.

This is obviously not an exact science but my point is there might be exceptions but you see a general pattern in how Fergie conducted his transfers throughout his 27 years at the club. He might have admired big name players like Batistuta or Ronaldo but he just was not comfortable spending big money on someone like Hazard or Yaya Touré or Agüero. Even when he did, it was in small numbers and never the majority of his summer business.

I mean what we spent on teenage Ronaldo in 2003, or Nani in 2007 while not record fees were still good / high fees for such young players. Spending 32 mil in 2012 on a 21 year old Hazard would fit that bill. I believe he was rather uncomfortable with the agent fee and high wages. But us, Chelsea and City were all definitely in for Hazard.
Ronaldinho was also close / more or less done in 2003 before Kenyon decided not to do anything good for us any longer as he was moving to Chelsea.

 

[jm99]

From his point of view, that side won him the league and from his point of view, the likes of Smalling and Jones were good enough to come in and continue the success. I read his book when he spoke about that final in 2011. He said he knew he couldn't compete with the brand of football Barcelona were showing and the intensity they played with using defenders like Rio and Vida. He wrote that he needed faster more mobile players that can play higher up, hence Jones and Smalling were being moulded to shape a new style with the likes of Kagawa, Anderson and Cleverley. Remember that amazing start to a season we had in 2012? When we beat Arsenal 8/2 with these players. That was apparently his vision for the future. He felt that team with the addition of a Bale, Fàbregas or Kroos if I remember correctly, should be able to win another CL. I know it sounds crazy in hindsight but we did not look all that bad in that period to be fair. We weren't as good as we'd been with Cristiano but who would? We still looked a very good side that just needed some fine tuning. Little did we know that half the reason it was good, was the man himself. He didn't know either.

Well I mean in his last season he was regularly playing two 40 year olds in midfield that he knew would be retiring at the end of the season and a backing that were mostly in their mid 30s.

Maybe you're right but then that would mean that moyes also thought there was no value in the market and was happy with one 24m signing and it's just coincidence that only as soon as we dropped out of the top 4 and lost the champions league revenue for the first time that we started spending but I don't really believe that

 

[Theonas]

I mean what we spent on teenage Ronaldo in 2003, or Nani in 2007 while not record fees were still good / high fees for such young players. Spending 32 mil in 2012 on a 21 year old Hazard would fit that bill. I believe he was rather uncomfortable with the agent fee and high wages. But us, Chelsea and City were all definitely in for Hazard.
Ronaldinho was also close / more or less done in 2003 before Kenyon decided not to do anything good for us any longer as he was moving to Chelsea.

Yea you can always point names here and there as it's not binary. But the pattern to me is clear, those were the exceptions and time after time, there was reluctance. Fergie did not show the same reluctance when it came to Rio, Rooney or Berbatov for example. He broke the record and showed more than once he was happy to take the risk. After Chelsea and City came, the prices went up, it just makes more sense to me that a Scotsman from working class background who was making do (winning) with his ways of working, just didn't want to suddenly to change his ways of working towards the end of his career.

 

[friendlytramp]

Greatest coach.
Ferguson greatest manager.
Few would argue.

 

[Theonas]

Well I mean in his last season he was regularly playing two 40 year olds in midfield that he knew would be retiring at the end of the season and a backing that were mostly in their mid 30s.

Maybe you're right but then that would mean that moyes also thought there was no value in the market and was happy with one 24m signing and it's just coincidence that only as soon as we dropped out of the top 4 and lost the champions league revenue for the first time that we started spending but I don't really believe that

Moyes wanted players. I think it's well documented that we were close to Fàbregas and Kroos, maybe even Bale if I remember correctly. But you see the pattern here, obvious big expensive names. Those are never a guarantee especially when you factor in the uncertainty around us at the time. I mean, why would Kroos choose an unknown post Fergie entity over Real? When it comes to players that needed a bit more scouting and work behind the scenes, we just weren't set up for that as a club. Every manager that came in after Fergue spoke of how outdated our scouting system was. And yes we can blame the Glazers for that because it's their job to ensure that the club is sustainable beyond one man.

Add to that, Moyes's lower profile and his reluctance at upsetting a team that many saw at the time as the league winners. I mean people were criticizing him for getting rid of Fergie's staff, you can understand why he would feel like he needs some time before making major changes to a team that just won the league.

Our club was a very outdated structurally and relied on the expertise of a genius to keep it competitive. Neither Fergie or the Glazers anticipated this properly and to be fair, it really is very difficult to do so. How is Fergie supposed to change a structure that was working for him when he was in his '70s? The Glazers are just not football people, they found a perfect setup that needed minimal interference from them and let it roll. That's the biggest reason they have failed.

 

[Theonas]

Greatest coach.
Ferguson greatest manager.
Few would argue.

That's actually closer to it. The job changed so much over the years that the two are doing almost two different jobs. Fergie was almost like a CEO, running the club's operations. Pep is micro, it's all about what's on the pitch and the mechanics of it. Neither could do what the other does to the same level of quality.

 

[jm99]

Moyes wanted players. I think it's well documented that we were close to Fàbregas and Kroos, maybe even Bale if I remember correctly. But you see the pattern here, obvious big expensive names. Those are never a guarantee especially when you factor in the uncertainty around us at the time. I mean, why would Kroos choose an unknown post Fergie entity over Real? When it comes to players that needed a bit more scouting and work behind the scenes, we just weren't set up for that as a club. Every manager that came in after Fergue spoke of how outdated our scouting system was. And yes we can blame the Glazers for that because it's their job to ensure that the club is sustainable beyond one man.

Add to that, Moyes's lower profile and his reluctance at upsetting a team that many saw at the time as the league winners. I mean people were criticizing him for getting rid of Fergie's staff, you can understand why he would feel like he needs some time before making major changes to a team that just won the league.

Our club was a very outdated structurally and relied on the expertise of a genius to keep it competitive. Neither Fergie or the Glazers anticipated this properly and to be fair, it really is very difficult to do so. How is Fergie supposed to change a structure that was working for him when he was in his '70s? The Glazers are just not football people, they found a perfect setup that needed minimal interference from them and let it roll. That's the biggest reason they have failed.

Well Kroos didn't join real til a year later so it wasn't a choice between us and them. The thing is you're doing an awful lot of assuming just to justify your belief that the Glazers didn't hold back spending during the time when debt repayments were at their highest level. Maybe everything you've said is true, but I think it's a lot less likely that Ferguson suddenly decided to stop spending for 5 years right after we lost the best player in the world for a record fee than it is that the Glazers simply didn't make the funds available by and large

 

[jm99]

Greatest coach.
Ferguson greatest manager.
Few would argue.

I Dont really think this is true. Look at peak mourinho, would pep have won a treble with Porto, I doubt it, would pep have won a treble with Inter, no. Could mourinho have won trebles with that Barca side or this man city side, yes.

 

[united_99]

I Dont really think this is true. Look at peak mourinho, would pep have won a treble with Porto, I doubt it, would pep have won a treble with Inter, no. Could mourinho have won trebles with that Barca side or this man city side, yes.

I agree. Prime Mourinho may not have dominated the games that much and he would not have lasted longer than 3 years at City or Barca, but I strongly believe he would have won league titles and at least 1 CL, potentially even 1 at each club (in less time).
Also in Fergie’s latter years the media also realised that United did not have a strong squad, it was the common opinion among pundits that you give him any of the top 4 squads back then and he would win the league.

Right now however, Pep would not win the league with Arsenal’s, United’s or Newcastle’s squad. His squad is just much deeper in quality than the other teams’.

 

[jm99]

I agree. Prime Mourinho may not have dominated the games that much and he would not have lasted longer than 3 years at City or Barca, but I strongly believe he would have won league titles and at least 1 CL, potentially even 1 at each club (in less time).
Also in Fergie’s latter years the media also realised that United did not have a strong squad, it was the common opinion among pundits that you give him any of the top 4 squads back then and he would win the league.

Right now however, Pep would not win the league with Arsenal’s, United’s or Newcastle’s squad. His squad is just much deeper in quality than the other teams’.

It's not even limited to mourinho, could pep have won la liga with atletico and reached 2 champions league finals? No chance. Even last year, would pep have been able to win the champions league with real madrid? Probably not. Could other managers have done what pep did at Barca, bayern and city? Probably yes.

 

[Theonas]

It's not even limited to mourinho, could pep have won la liga with atletico and reached 2 champions league finals? No chance. Even last year, would pep have been able to win the champions league with real madrid? Probably not. Could other managers have done what pep did at Barca, bayern and city? Probably yes.

Actually no. Your only metric is the final count of trophies and numbers. The reason people rate Pep so highly is his trophies PLUS his footprint and influence. A lot of people in football are inspired by his methods and are his disciples, not to mention that one of his teams is considered by many the greatest football side to have played the game. If football was only about trophies, the likes of Hungary of Brazil 1982 or Netherlands would disappear from public consciousness by now. So maybe no, Pep would not have been able to win a CL with Porto but likewise, Mourinho couldn't create a team that is spoken about, referred and copied like Pep does. This is similar to our own Fergie, his CL numbers are modest relatively but most would still hold him up higher than managers with better CL numbers, it's because there is more to the game and Fergie gave an abundance of that.