You can't be that surprised he's off to City. They clearly gave Pellegrini a token contract because they've been working on getting Pep since last season.
Club want longevity by the looks of it, Giggs is the obvious choice, I would swap Giggs for LVG now.
Only if he actually does well. Or decides he wants to stay in management long-term. I'm all for a long-term appointment if we can find one, but it's incredibly risky to go into a choice and base it off of a supposed quality you don't actually know they're going to have.
I'd rather have three or four years of success than Guardiola than risk having Giggs on the notion that he might be successful and last a long time, and will definitely want to stay long-term even if he does succeed.
Of what use is longevity if Giggs turns out to be shite?
How long-term is "long term" these days?
In today's world, 5-6 seasons is as about as long term as it's ever going to get. There will be no new Fergusons and Wengers.
In today's world, 5-6 seasons is as about as long term as it's ever going to get. There will be no new Fergusons and Wengers.
Like guardiola at barca, who the feck was he, a decent defender, but he knew the club inside out, got brought up the right way, very like Giggs, that is the argument for him.
And what a shit argument it is.
Exactly. They're idiots if they think the club is better off going for a "long term" manager rather than the best they can get right now for the club. Moyes was meant to be a long term manager, look how that turned out. Giggs would most likely be even worse. The most we can hope for is that someone like Guardiola or Ancelotti decides to stay for more than 3-4 years - holding on to some romantic dream of replicating Ferguson's tenure is absurd.
Please be true this time. If not, I am adding Graham Hunter to my personal black list. And black it is indeed.
Yes but there is also that list of those who would probably break their ankles in trying to attempt the tiki-taka football.
But everyone on here wants to sign guardiola... He was given the chance, why not us to one of our legends if the hierarchy believes he has what is required
Guardiola didn't succeed because he knew Barcelona inside out. He succeeded because he was the greatest tactician football had seen since Mourinho, and that exhaustive knowledge of the workings of the game was something he was working towards since his playing days. Knowing a club inside out means naught on the football pitch, which is where all managers are ultimately judged.
Guardiola smashed it with the reserves first though. Giggs has done sweet feck all for anyone to suggest he'd be a decent replacement.
Because Guardiola is a once in a generation manager who had demonstrated his ability by successfully developing and implementing an extremely effective system in an actual team that competes in a league. Giggs has done nothing compared to what Guardiola did before he stepped up to the Barca first team, and there's no reason to believe that he could do anything like what Guardiola did.
I wouldn't say it counts for naught on the pitch. Indirect benefits that are difficult to quantify? Sure - but understanding the culture of an organisation will always help someone to run it better and achieve better results with it.
He didn't succeed because he knew the club inside out though, he succeeded because he turned out to be an excellent manager. Knowing the club inside out was just a bonus for him and certainly not a notion we should be basing our next appointment on.
For every Guardiola, there is a hundred Alan Shearer's.
It's amazing to me that people could ignore the massive importance of where Pep goes next. Imagine what he could do with us in 3-4 years; then imagine what he would do with City in the same time period. get a grip, guys. we're Manchester United and we should be in the hunt for the world's best manager.
Yeah I remember all the planning that went behind Alan Shearer's appointment at Newcastle.
So guardiola it is then, stall it over, we just want you to be the best tactitian ever and be motivated for us long term, like mourinho he is doing well, know feck all about our club, that doesn't matter. I jest, at least with Giggs in charge we would attack, at a minimum uphold our traditions, we could get these other foreign managers but they won't hang around long, even if they do reasonably well, like LVG was meant to.
What are these traditions?
Paul scholes will tell you it's about all out attack, winning every game 5-0.
But you are comparing a Manchester United and barca education to a guy who travelled through lower tier clubs and later ended up at the club he supports, not the same
Knowing the club might give you a very slight advantage at the start of your tenure, as opposed to someone who hasn't been brought through the system and has to learn almost everything from scratch - from an administrative perspective. But on the pitch - I'd argue there are little to no benefits at all because at the end of the day - all top football clubs are by and large the same (every club has traditions) - what matter most are the results and maybe the aesthetics. As long as a manager can consistently win games while playing decent football (optional in some cases), he's good as gold. And matches are won by players improvising in patches but primarily executing a set of tactics laid out by the manager, and if they don't work then the manager has to make alterations in-game. That's all there is to it in the most basic form. Knowing the club won't help you there. It's not like Mehmet Scholl would make a good manager because he knows Bayern Munich inside out.
Far too much emphasis is laid on knowing the club when a good manager can learn whatever there is to learn in a very short while. Like, it's not that hard unless you're hell bent on being myopic and doing things your way while blanking everything out as white noise. For me, knowing the club is a very minor added benefit, but when someone's credentials are being predicated on that aspect (without mentioning the credentials as a coach - because that's what most managers are at the end of the day - being a 'manager' just entails more duties), it's quite worrying.
I'm confident every team on the planet would be happy to win every game 5-0, don't think that's exactly possible though.
Yeah I hate this 'knows the club inside out' nonsense. What the hell does that even mean? He knows the inner workings of the stadium? Is on first-name basis with the tea-lady? Any self-respecting football person with half a brain is aware of United's attacking tradition. I don't think having played under Ferguson means that you are going to have some special ability to run the club. After, the likes of Keane, Bruce, Ince and Solskjaer also know the club 'inside out'; I wouldn't want any of them managing us.
I agree that it is of course more of a short-term advantage as any manager will understand the clubs culture with time. However football managers can't have any long-term advantages without getting through the short-term and that is a challenge in itself.
I think in Giggs' case so much emphasis is placed on knowing the club because we know so little about him as a manager and what he is doing behind the scenes. It's pretty much the only thing that anyone can talk about in terms of positives that we in the public know of. The rest is down to whether or not we put enough faith what the club may or may not see.
Knowing the club must be a key factor in the short term though. Individual brilliance is important - yes. Tactics are more important - sure. You're forgetting one thing though: Motivation.
It's important to stress that I can only speculate about what is important since I've never been involved in football management but based on my experience in business and life in general being able to motivate people is a great advantage for a leader. It's easier to motivate individuals if you understand them.
If Giggs is socially adept and can make the most of his understanding of the culture of Manchester United and its people (including the tea lady) then that should be an advantage in terms of man management.
Anyway to be honest I don't know why I'm writing long posts in this thread defending Ryan Giggs. If we get the chance to hire Pep Guardiola then we should bloody well take it because we might not get that chance again and he's clearly got the potential to be the most successful of all time by the time he retires. So yeah...
Yep, pretty much. Learning about our traditions (initially from a superficial standpoint) doesn't necessitate a massive learning curve.
Woodward: Oye Pep.
Guardiola: Si Señor!
Woodward: We want to see attractive, winning football.
Guardiola: Yo me encargo Señor!
Woodward: Andale, andale! Arriba, arriba!
Done.
Everything else can be learnt in due time - like our preference for bringing through youth, the club's history (which I'm pretty sure most people involved in top tier European football know about anyway), engaging with the local fans and so forth. As for getting to know the backroom staff, the tea-lady and the likes, any half decent human being could do that in a few months at max. It's rudimentary social networking. Too big a deal is being made of something really simplistic. Even the likes of Sir Matt and Fergie didn't know the club inside out before they joined United.
@Shamwow I agree with almost everything you wrote mate. The part about motivation is particularly on point, as is the one about us speculating (wrt Giggs' credentials), and I have to admit that a lot us opposed to his appointment engage in it. But all I wanted to say in the previous post was - getting to know your new behind the scenes staff or immersing yourself in the club's traditions (or other such things concerning the knowing United part) is hardly an arduous task. It's like joining a new school when you're young. You might feel isolated or have some teething issues at first, but by the end of your first semester - you're pretty much at par with students who've been there for a long time (unless you're socially inept that is). I'm pretty sure than most of the elite managers out there - who are really detailed and methodical in their research, will have no problem tackling that kind of stuff.
This, 100%.
If people want Giggs then they should at least make their argument along the lines of "he will be a brilliant manager", not "he knows the club really well".
At least they'd be focusing on what's actually important, even if they do have absolutely zero evidence to back it up.
So like Van Gaal then?
Yes, and it comes with the part of the package when your employ Louis, much like with a Bielsa to cite another example - so when you appoint managers like that you have to know your boundaries as an organisation, and the amount of leeway they'll be afforded before they stick their finger in everything (which in hindsight affects a club like United more because we give our manager supreme control over all sporting decisions unlike a lot of other European elites where the chain of command from upper management to 'head coach' is more layered). Van Gaal has a record of meddling and trying to become the overmind at both Barcelona and Bayern Munich, sometimes it's beneficial, but at a lot of the bigger clubs he can have a complete falling out with the higher ups because the demands become increasingly tenuous. Can't find a link to the Barcelona article right now, but Rummenigge's opinions about his tenure at Bayern Munich were published in Der Spiegel, including this rather relevant part:
http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/367525.html
Bayern knew what their limits were, and as soon as results nosedived they cut the cord because Van Gaal was creating a lot of trouble with the players and meddling with their transfer plans (including the initial reluctance to sign Neuer who would displace Kraft). Whether Van Gaal at United has reached that critical stage yet, and whether Woodward and the owners can do the same at United remains to be seen.
Not sure about it; Pep was adamant to Bayern that "it is Thiago or nobody else". I also recall Thiago or his father saying after his move to Bayern that United have never spoken to them.
This Pep situation just feels like something that's isn't going to go in our favour. In recent years, City come across as a much better run club, and my faith in our club's accuracy and timeliness of decision-making has dwindled. And out of all the coups they've had over the last 5-7 years such as signing Toure, Aguero, Silva etc. this feels like it could be the most significant for them, and damaging for us.
Definitely, especially when Guardiola's best attributes as a player had little to do with defense
Have a feeling he's City bound, if so we need to make sure Carlo doesn't slip too. This talk about giving an unproven Giggs a chance is silly imo, let him prove himself elsewhere.
Pep will go elsewhere, Ancelotti will go elsewhere and we will end up with slim pickings. Its destined to be that way
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03...urce=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_musicmusic
Has this been posted?
Has this been posted?
If we miss out on this chance to land Pep, and we find out later, we were his first choice- it would be mental.