Moyes To Succeed Ferguson Anyone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plechazunga said:
It's a potentially very hazardous time for the club. Almost any other manager would go in there trying to convince himself he could fill Fergie's shoes. Mourinho is a big enough personality that he'll believe he can do better than Fergie. Or at least, he'll radiate that belief, whether it's true or not. That's the difference.

And if it only lasted three years, I don't see that as the catastrophe you do.
Click to expand...

I really agree with this. Talked about it many times over the years, the whole "echoes of Busby" thing. Mourinho is the manager that makes me least nervous about that specific issue.

But he has other issues.

I also think people are overstating the whole "Mourinho leaves clubs in tatters" point as well.
 
Adebesi said:
I also think people are overstating the whole "Mourinho leaves clubs in tatters" point as well.
Click to expand...

Depends on the club, I think his slash and burn policies would have a bigger effect here than at the Bernabeau for example. We don't have the tools for a change of administration amid tumult. Look at us now in an orchestrated handover with the great man's blessing.
 
I dont think his policies are really "slash and burn". That seems like hyperbole to me.

Skewed towards the short term, especially compared to SAF? No doubt. But there is a lot of ground between that and "slash and burn."
 
Plechazunga said:
I think that's silly. Ferguson's just retired, it's natural for people to have a favourite in mind to take over. We're spoilt alright, but I don't think wanting what we see as the best candidate for the job is a manifestation of that. Most people will get behind Moyes once he arrived.

In fact, having just read cider's posts, I'm already warming to him...
Click to expand...

If we're not top of the league at this time next year I bet money that there'll be loads of people wanting him out.

I hope I'm wrong but that's how I see it going. More likely if we're not top after about 5 games.

The thing is there's all this stuff we took for granted under Fergie. The way he handled the media, the ego of the players, motivation, pressure, etc. These are all things he just didn't get wrong, which other managers, even the best ones, struggle hugely with. It's going to be a bit of a shock to the system.

I do think Mourinho ticks some of the boxes in that respect, but there's others he very definitely doesn't tick (you covered some of it). I don't want someone who thinks they're bigger than the club replacing someone who spent 26 years basically making everything about it. It's dangerous and silly...Mourinho doesn't keep players egos in check, he just makes sure his is even bigger...and then he leaves.

People overstate the whole stepping into Fergie's shoes thing. As if anyone who isn't Mourinho will just cower in the corner afraid of sitting in Fergie's chair.
 
I'm not necessarily advocating that Mourinho should be the man, but how much his approach tends towards staying a short period may have depended on the organisations he was working in.

Porto was always going to be a relatively short stop as he wanted to manage at the very highest level. Chelsea is, as we all know, a mad house. Again, whether some of that was of his making is arguable, but managers just don't last there. Inter he did well, but he didn't seem to enjoy Italian football. And finally Madrid, like Chelsea, isn't somewhere you stay for a very long period.

I think it's pretty much accepted that English football is where he's at his happiest. So it's at least arguable that he might, if working in a settled environment, put down roots for a much longer period and view it more as a long term project and less about a race towards the CL and then feck off. Then again he seems to thrive on confrontation, so maybe that can never be the case for him.
 
Broyphs said:
I'm not necessarily advocating that Mourinho should be the man, but how much his approach tends towards staying a short period may have depended on the organisations he was working in.

Porto was always going to be a relatively short stop as he wanted to manage at the very highest level. Chelsea is, as we all know, a mad house. Again, whether some of that was of his making is arguable, but managers just don't last there. Inter he did well, but he didn't seem to enjoy Italian football. And finally Madrid, like Chelsea, isn't somewhere you stay for a very long period.

I think it's pretty much accepted that English football is where he's at his happiest. So it's at least arguable that he might, if working in a settled environment, put down roots for a much longer period and view it more as a long term project and less about a race towards the CL and then feck off. Then again he seems to thrive on confrontation, so maybe that can never be the case for him.
Click to expand...

Yep, agree with that.

I even think, if he ends up at Chelsea, he might well stay there for a long time too.
 
Adebesi said:
I dont think his policies are really "slash and burn". That seems like hyperbole to me.

Skewed towards the short term, especially compared to SAF? No doubt. But there is a lot of ground between that and "slash and burn."
Click to expand...

No a fairer assessment would be self centred, and the slash and burn is the result if things don't go smoothly. The ability to see out trouble is something he has seemed to lack. He might not go in with that intent, but it seems to be a default escape plan.
 
Broyphs said:
I'm not necessarily advocating that Mourinho should be the man, but how much his approach tends towards staying a short period may have depended on the organisations he was working in.

Porto was always going to be a relatively short stop as he wanted to manage at the very highest level. Chelsea is, as we all know, a mad house. Again, whether some of that was of his making is arguable, but managers just don't last there. Inter he did well, but he didn't seem to enjoy Italian football. And finally Madrid, like Chelsea, isn't somewhere you stay for a very long period.

I think it's pretty much accepted that English football is where he's at his happiest. So it's at least arguable that he might, if working in a settled environment, put down roots for a much longer period and view it more as a long term project and less about a race towards the CL and then feck off. Then again he seems to thrive on confrontation, so maybe that can never be the case for him.
Click to expand...


Porto he left understandably, but to think he had no hand in creating the madhouse that is Chelsea would be news to me. It's a club in the image of the man in many ways. Pre and post Jose Chelsea is how I see that club.

He says English football is where he's happiest because the press fawn over him and he feeds them all the lines they need, the Italian and Spanish media never sucked his words up so willingly.

I think he is the only bloke on the planet who would not be thrown by the scale of the club, but that is far outweighed by almost everything else for me.
 
moses said:
No a fairer assessment would be self centred, and the slash and burn is the result if things don't go smoothly. The ability to see out trouble is something he has seemed to lack. He might not go in with that intent, but it seems to be a default escape plan.
Click to expand...

Certainly his last few months at Madrid have been 'slash and burn' with his public calling out of his players and his general approach and demeanour. It just looks like he's trying to get the sack.

If there is one reason to discount him it's that I'd never want a manager coming in and slagging off Giggs publicly, as he's done with Casillas, or telling Vidic he should stop whining because a kid took his place (Pepe). It's all pretty unbecoming.
 
noodlehair said:
You lot make it sound like the manager somehow comes in anc clicks his fingers and suddenly everything at the club acts as if they themselves created it.

Fergie's spent 26 years building United into what it is. It works and it's succesful...and it is like a train track in that one person coming in with their own ideas and not liking it can very easily and very quickly rip it apart...and then we're fecked, Liverpool style.

The Mourinho obsession on here is mind boggling. He's about as suited for running United as Mario Balotelli would be to run a fireworks shop....you'd get a fantastic, chaotic display...then you'd have to build another shop with the money you don't have.

At best it'd be a short term success, and at worst a long term absolute fecking disaster.
Click to expand...

I have no Mourinho obsession, I think the guy is a monumental twat, and has acted the cnut at certain clubs. But then, are those clubs a circus because of him, or did he just pitch up at ridiculous clubs and inevitably act the shit?

Chelsea are a joke more because of Abramovich, as has been seen since Mourinho left. In fact, it was evident before he got there with the way Ranieri was dumped. Real Madrid and the farce they can be is well documented and stretches back further than Mourinho ever going there.

I don't particularly like him at times, but I do feel he is the one manager out there with the sheer force of will to cope with the immense pressure that will come with following on from Fergie. And all his rhetoric since it became evident he was leaving Madrid has been about settling somewhere and building a legacy. He'd jump at the United job, and he's clever enough to release that this isn't a club where he could come and act the tit. He knows United are the real deal and I think he'd respect that, and also the foundations Fergie has built.

That's just my take on it.
 
moses said:
Porto he left understandably, but to think he had no hand in creating the madhouse that is Chelsea would be news to me. It's a club in the image of the man in many ways. Pre and post Jose Chelsea is how I see that club.

He says English football is where he's happiest because the press fawn over him and he feeds them all the lines they need, the Italian and Spanish media never sucked his words up so willingly.

I think he is the only bloke on the planet who would not be thrown by the scale of the club, but that is far outweighed by almost everything else for me.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit too extreme. I don't think he's altered the way Abramovich runs his club especially. Everything we know about him tells us he'd have given him the bullet eventually, even if Mourinho didn't carry on the way he did.

On the press point, yeah, undoubtedly that's a major part of it. Which doesn't say a lot for the guy. But it remains a fact that he's at his happiest - whatever that means - when he's in England.

Yeah, I probably feel the same, tbh, for the reasons set out in my following post.
 
Broyphs said:
I think that's a bit too extreme. I don't think he's altered the way Abramovich runs his club especially. Everything we know about him tells us he'd have given him the bullet eventually, even if Mourinho didn't carry on the way he did.

On the press point, yeah, undoubtedly that's a major part of it. Which doesn't say a lot for the guy. But it remains a fact that he's at his happiest - whatever that means - when he's in England.

Yeah, I probably feel the same, tbh, for the reasons set out in my following post.
Click to expand...

The Jose Roman thing remains an odd one for me. I don't get the feeling hje was sacked the way the others were sacked, I can't see him as wholly the victim in any circumstance, but that might be all in my head.

I honestly do see the Chelsea/Terry/Jose swagger and arrogance as one and the same. Again, I do like a convoluted theory every now and then.
 
noodlehair said:
United's success is built on the back of continuity and basically Fergie being in place for a very long time. There isn't another Ferguson, but there is a lot of the hard work he's done already in place for someone else to build on. It's not something that can just recover if someone comes in and smashes it all up because they got bored one morning.
Click to expand...

Why is it that Moyes is considered the "safe" option, though? He's unproven on a lot of levels. If the club do choose him then I'm sure the right people will have identified the qualities that are needed to prove himself on these levels but it doesn't change the fact he still has a lot to do. This is the first time he'll go head to head with a sugardaddy club and be expected to win. This is the first time he'll have a fortune to spend on players. This is the first time he'll have to manage some of the best-paid players in the world. Why do people think that if he finds this step up difficult it won't have long-term damage on the club?

He won't rock the boat by completing changing the back room or playing staff and he'll welcome having Sir Alex there in an advisory role, and there's very few managers you can say that about. I get that. So if we're looking to simply maintain the good work that Sir Alex has done and continue to place the values of youth development and stability at the heart of our success then Moyes is one of a select few who can do it. Perhaps we want to go one step further and simply have Moyes doing the day-to-day management of things while Sir Alex still play a big role in shaping the future of this team and Moyes is in a unique situation of actively welcoming that kind of help. Who knows. I just don't see why people are suggesting this is some kind of simpler, safer path. Continuing Sir Alex's great work by essentially changing nothing except the man in charge is going to be exceptionally difficult.

Let's say Sir Alex's role is minimal and he leaves Moyes to shape the team in his own way. He doesn't have a good record with big money transfers and he doesn't have much of a history for managing egos. Does that mean he's going to be wary of signing players for big money and try to sign players from small clubs whenever possible? Probably not. He'll know that he needs to continue adding top players to the team to progress. As he's relatively inexperienced in this end of the market let's say he makes a couple of poor signings for £20m+ each. No catastrophe, we've thrown money down the drain on expensive signings in the past. What happens if these big money failures then lead to some of the top players questioning the club's ambition? Does Moyes have the man-management skills to handle these egos like Sir Alex has done with Cantona, Keane, Ronaldo, Rooney and various others? Maybe not. If one of these top players go along with Scholes, Giggs and Rio retiring in the next year or so then cracks start to appear. Maybe we'll slip into the battle for the CL spots and then it's crunch time. Are we still asking Moyes to settle the ship and stay in those CL spots or does there become the point when we decide we need a manager capable of taking us to the next level and ultimately Moyes isn't that man for it? So much for steadying the ship, now we've changed managers twice in 2/3 years and we're in a precarious position. When you bring someone in to take you up a level you run the risk of taking a step back at first, and one step outside the CL spots can be fatal to a club's immediate future.

Mourinho might well leave after 3 or 4 years just like he's done at every other club but at least he leaves the club in winning ways. He won't guarantee long-term stability but who can? Moyes might leave the backroom staff intact and he won't spend the kind of money Mourinho has grown accustomed to spending but if he can't achieve success with the club then there simply won't be any stability. He needs to be successful to stay in the job. Mourinho guarantees success. We're in a much more comfortable position than Liverpool were a couple of years ago but there are still some parallels to be drawn. After getting rid of a manager that challenged for a league title and won a Champions League they chose to go for the experienced, Premier League-proven option in Hodgson. He'd just won manager of the year, he'd achieved success in Europe and he had a long, successful career up until that point. He didn't work out and the club has been taking backward steps ever since to the point where they're now no longer even in the Europa League spots. The Chairman used an eerily similar phrase to explain why Hodgson was their choice and the fans' reactions to the possible appointment has been almost identical.

"You take the League Managers' Association's Manager of the Year - that shows the respect his peers have for him. It's a respect that's been earned not only over the last year, which was outstanding, but over a long period of time.

"Roy brings precisely the sort of experience we were looking for. He's been around and dealt with lots of different international players.

"He's English but he's cosmopolitan. He wasn't chosen because he was English - he was chosen because he was the best man for the job.

"We need someone to steady the ship at this stage and I think Roy has got all of the talents we were looking for."
Click to expand...
 
I get the impression the club wanted to change the power structure from the Fergie model, where the manager has vast power that stretches into every area of the club, to a more traditional manager role where the manager deals with coaching the squad and leaves most other issues to the executives. Among the various reasons Mourinho didn't get more attention, this may have factored into the equation.
 
The club have had this problem before and we got it horribly wrong back then. When Sir Matt retired, we installed Wilf as the continuity man and it seemed like a good idea. Sir Matt had recommended Wilf. Is this the same situation?

Personally, I don’t think so. Wilf inherited big problems that Sir Matt hadn’t addressed. The squad was aging and living on the glory of the ’68 European Cup win. Also Wilf, whilst being widely recognised as a good coach, was much too close to the players. Sir Matt stayed around and the players often went to him behind Wilf’s back. It was a disaster and Sir Matt had to come out of retirement for a spell. And even when he retired for good, it was a good while before the club was back on track. Arguably that only really happened when Sir Alex arrived.

There are several differences this time. Firstly, we have a squad which is mostly at the beginning of its development, not at the end. We have a number of good young players who have just won the league and will get better. Secondly, Moyes is most certainly his own man and despite his lack of silverware is definitely a good manager. Those berating Everton’s style of play seem to have quickly forgotten the way they played us off the park in the first game of the season. Also, as Cider has eloquently argued, Moyes understands the concept of bulding a football club rather than just building a first eleven. That is Ferguson’s greatest achievement and in choosing Moyes, he’s clearly advocating evolution of what he has built rather than the revolution that would likely ensue should some of the other candidates turn up.

The new man must not neglect the youth system and needs to continue to respect the traditions of the club. Manchester United is built on a mixture of talent developed at the club together with the occasional major experienced signing, Van Persie being the latest example. We don’t just go out and buy a team as has become popular lately. To me, that’s very important. In fact, it’s more important than winning trophies.

Someone pointed out that whoever gets the job won’t be as good as Sir Alex and that’s self evidently true. We just need to get used to that idea. We’ve had the best manager in the world at the helm of our club and he’s not going to be there next season. Moyes appears to be the anointed one. He’s not going to find it easy and as fans we need to give him the support he needs to be successful.
 
Raoul said:
I get the impression the club wanted to change the power structure from the Fergie model, where the manager has vast power that stretches into every area of the club, to a more traditional manager role where the manager deals with coaching the squad and leaves most other issues to the executives. Among the various reasons Mourinho didn't get more attention, this may have factored into the equation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which was inevitable because of the scale. The job SAF left was a much bigger one than the one he took in 1986.
 
Brwned nails it again.

Most interesting for me will be how much Fergie will still have to say. Will he give Moyes a lot of room to develop his own ideas or will he be there at most things Moyes does? And how much help will Moyes need and how much will he want?

Still think that the fact Fergie will still be here is one of the reason we didnt ask Jose to become the new manager or the reason he doesnt want to come. I just don't think those two would work together well. Apart from the reasons mentioned this one I think also plays a role
 
To me it just seems to be all about tradition. Our two most successful managers have been hands on with all levels of the club I.e youth teams, have been very much authoritarian, very British in their approach and like a strong spine of British talent. I'm pretty happy that we seem to be wanting to carry this on instead of just looking at who has won shit loads.
 
Good post, Browned.

We do seem to be focusing a lot on our tradition and doing things the United way when there's a new opportunity.

Can't help but feel this attitude didn't work well for our neighbours down the road.
 
Brwned said:
We're in a much more comfortable position than Liverpool were a couple of years ago but there are still some parallels to be drawn. After getting rid of a manager that challenged for a league title and won a Champions League they chose to go for the experienced, Premier League-proven option in Hodgson. He'd just won manager of the year, he'd achieved success in Europe and he had a long, successful career up until that point. He didn't work out and the club has been taking backward steps ever since to the point where they're now no longer even in the Europa League spots.
Click to expand...

Liverpool had already dropped off the CL radar when Rafa left, there was no sound base for the incoming manager to work on while we've just won the league.

With Mourinho we are just postponing the problem until he leaves and when he does leave we won't be in as good a position to try "safe yet unproven" options with all the risks they involve (your arguments are valid there).

He left Inter aged and a spent force. I'd just rather bite the bullet now.
 
Brwned said:
Why is it that Moyes is considered the "safe" option, though? He's unproven on a lot of levels. If the club do choose him then I'm sure the right people will have identified the qualities that are needed to prove himself on these levels but it doesn't change the fact he still has a lot to do. This is the first time he'll go head to head with a sugardaddy club and be expected to win. This is the first time he'll have a fortune to spend on players. This is the first time he'll have to manage some of the best-paid players in the world. Why do people think that if he finds this step up difficult it won't have long-term damage on the club?

He won't rock the boat by completing changing the back room or playing staff and he'll welcome having Sir Alex there in an advisory role, and there's very few managers you can say that about. I get that. So if we're looking to simply maintain the good work that Sir Alex has done and continue to place the values of youth development and stability at the heart of our success then Moyes is one of a select few who can do it. Perhaps we want to go one step further and simply have Moyes doing the day-to-day management of things while Sir Alex still play a big role in shaping the future of this team and Moyes is in a unique situation of actively welcoming that kind of help. Who knows. I just don't see why people are suggesting this is some kind of simpler, safer path. Continuing Sir Alex's great work by essentially changing nothing except the man in charge is going to be exceptionally difficult.

Let's say Sir Alex's role is minimal and he leaves Moyes to shape the team in his own way. He doesn't have a good record with big money transfers and he doesn't have much of a history for managing egos. Does that mean he's going to be wary of signing players for big money and try to sign players from small clubs whenever possible? Probably not. He'll know that he needs to continue adding top players to the team to progress. As he's relatively inexperienced in this end of the market let's say he makes a couple of poor signings for £20m+ each. No catastrophe, we've thrown money down the drain on expensive signings in the past. What happens if these big money failures then lead to some of the top players questioning the club's ambition? Does Moyes have the man-management skills to handle these egos like Sir Alex has done with Cantona, Keane, Ronaldo, Rooney and various others? Maybe not. If one of these top players go along with Scholes, Giggs and Rio retiring in the next year or so then cracks start to appear. Maybe we'll slip into the battle for the CL spots and then it's crunch time. Are we still asking Moyes to settle the ship and stay in those CL spots or does there become the point when we decide we need a manager capable of taking us to the next level and ultimately Moyes isn't that man for it? So much for steadying the ship, now we've changed managers twice in 2/3 years and we're in a precarious position. When you bring someone in to take you up a level you run the risk of taking a step back at first, and one step outside the CL spots can be fatal to a club's immediate future.

Mourinho might well leave after 3 or 4 years just like he's done at every other club but at least he leaves the club in winning ways. He won't guarantee long-term stability but who can? Moyes might leave the backroom staff intact and he won't spend the kind of money Mourinho has grown accustomed to spending but if he can't achieve success with the club then there simply won't be any stability. He needs to be successful to stay in the job. Mourinho guarantees success. We're in a much more comfortable position than Liverpool were a couple of years ago but there are still some parallels to be drawn. After getting rid of a manager that challenged for a league title and won a Champions League they chose to go for the experienced, Premier League-proven option in Hodgson. He'd just won manager of the year, he'd achieved success in Europe and he had a long, successful career up until that point. He didn't work out and the club has been taking backward steps ever since to the point where they're now no longer even in the Europa League spots. The Chairman used an eerily similar phrase to explain why Hodgson was their choice and the fans' reactions to the possible appointment has been almost identical.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your reasoning here. But I think it's clear that the club is banking to some extent on Moyes being a long-term solution, not just someone to steady the ship for a couple of seasons. The idea is, I suspect, to let Fergie act as adviser and mentor to begin with. One may like or dislike that idea, but it rules out managers like Mourinho. He obviously isn't suited to such a role.

Our set-up in general is very good. We have an excellent academy - and all the rest of it. All built up under Fergie's leadership. It's a foundation which should make it "easy" enough for a competent man to keep us there or thereabouts provided that he takes Fergie's advice and sticks to the script. In this sense Moyes is undoubtedly a safer option than Mourinho or any other big name. It may not work out as planned, of course, but in theory it's a fairly safe scheme.

The downside is obvious, though: If this model depends too much on Fergie, if we end up relying yet again on his particular genius to keep us up top, we haven't moved on at all. And then we might find ourselves in a Busby/McGuinness scenario, or at least something equally bad. If this is to work Moyes needs to step out of Fergie's shadow at some point - and therein lies the gamble, one might say.
 
Roy Hodgson had a couple of decent years at Fulham, Moyes has had a full decade at Everton where he has done a fantastic job. Hodgson was signed at a time when he seemed to be the flavour of the month, Moyes, it appears has been looked at as a potential replacement to Fergie for a long time.

No parallels to be drawn at all as far as I am concerned
 
noodlehair said:
The thing is there's all this stuff we took for granted under Fergie. The way he handled the media, the ego of the players, motivation, pressure, etc. These are all things he just didn't get wrong, which other managers, even the best ones, struggle hugely with. It's going to be a bit of a shock to the system.
Click to expand...

The biggest thing has to be always, always challenging for the title. With the exception of 03-05 we have always been deeply involved in the title race, hell, in 17 out of 21 PL seasons we've either won it or finished a point away from doing so.

No other club in world football is like that, and now we won't be either. There'll be seasons where we sack it in to focus on Europe, seasons where we're just not up to it, and seasons where we give up when we're too far behind in November and spend the rest of the year meandering.
 
Plechazunga said:
O'Neill is the man for the job

When the time comes
Click to expand...

People might laugh now - but I and many others were fully behind O'Neill to be Fergie's replacement back in the day and arguably his CV even today is stronger than Moyes' seeing as he has actually won things and done a decent job in Europe. Now tainted by failure at Sunderland though.
 
I'm not a fan of Moyes and do not want him to take over, but he cannot be compared to O'Neil. He is better than that. O'Neil doesn't have anywhere near the same drive and passion as Moyes.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I'm not a fan of Moyes and do not want him to take over, but he cannot be compared to O'Neil. He is better than that. O'Neil doesn't have anywhere near the same drive and passion as Moyes.
Click to expand...

Can you put a number on how much drive and passion Moyes has so we can adequately compare it to the amount of drive and passion O'Neill has?
 
Thick Numpty said:
One person mentioned those two names once on the page you posted this on.

I love the way you guys keep going on about how anyone who isn't excited by Moyes are just obsessed with Mourinho and Klopp. it's getting ridiculous now.
Click to expand...

And the past 3 pages have all been bout Mourinho so you're point as in most instances is invalid.

Mourinho, Klopp and Pep are all unavailable. We either couldn't get them or didn't want them I think in the case of Jose. Right or wrong that's the case. I've asked numerous times, without the three of those in the mix who is better or more qualified than Moyes? Still not got an answer. Occasionally someone will pop up with an Ole or a Giggs and these are the same people who deride Moyes lack of experience. The whole thing is idiotic.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
And the past 3 pages have all been bout Mourinho so you're point as in most instances is invalid.

Mourinho, Klopp and Pep are all unavailable. We either couldn't get them or didn't want them I think in the case of Jose. Right or wrong that's the case. I've asked numerous times, without the three of those in the mix who is better or more qualified than Moyes? Still not got an answer. Occasionally someone will pop up with an Ole or a Giggs and these are the same people who deride Moyes lack of experience. The whole thing is idiotic.
Click to expand...

It became about Mourinho after you made that post.

The point isn't invalid because not everyone not keen on Moyes is of that opinion because of a Mourinho obsession.

If David Moyes is the 4th best/most qualified manager in the world then football management must be at an all-time low. Only those 3 are above him? Really?
 
Irwinwastheking said:
And the past 3 pages have all been bout Mourinho so you're point as in most instances is invalid.

Mourinho, Klopp and Pep are all unavailable. We either couldn't get them or didn't want them I think in the case of Jose. Right or wrong that's the case. I've asked numerous times, without the three of those in the mix who is better or more qualified than Moyes? Still not got an answer. Occasionally someone will pop up with an Ole or a Giggs and these are the same people who deride Moyes lack of experience. The whole thing is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Personally I think that Ancelotti is far more qualified than Moyes to take United job. Has won a lot of things and has experience in both Europe and England. He is relatively young too, only 53 years old.

Can he make a dynasty like Moyes (if things go right though), would he stay in a foreign league for a lot of years, is he capable of fighting in two fronts simultaneously and would he work under Sir Alex are a lot of questions we don't know the answers though. And I almost forgot, is he available?
 
I think the key thing to remember here is that Fergie, a man we have trusted for 27 years, has handpicked Moyes as his successor

I see the point about McGuiness/O Farrell after busby but I counter it with Liverpool and the boot-room success

it was built on core values, continuity, progression - I think in choosing Moyes we are picking a manager who will continue the fine traditions of the club, will play attractive attacking football, as Fergie's man he will use Alex as a mentor and as someone for advice and as someone who will demand the respect of the squad

I was originally bowled over by Jose's personality and ability to cope with the pressure of following Fergie but the more I think about it Moyes could be a great appointment and the start of another legacy.....he showed at Everton he could keep cool during the tought seasons and has established them as a top 7 side which is all you could expect from the squad given the budget restraints
 
Irwinwastheking said:
And the past 3 pages have all been bout Mourinho so you're point as in most instances is invalid.

Mourinho, Klopp and Pep are all unavailable. We either couldn't get them or didn't want them I think in the case of Jose. Right or wrong that's the case. I've asked numerous times, without the three of those in the mix who is better or more qualified than Moyes? Still not got an answer. Occasionally someone will pop up with an Ole or a Giggs and these are the same people who deride Moyes lack of experience. The whole thing is idiotic.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Ancelotti hasn't gotten more of a mention. Won the CL twice, domestic double in England. Only three years older than Moyes. Obviously a black mark against him is only winning the domestic league once in eight years with Milan, albeit winning it with Chelsea and now possibly PSG would suggest that he isn't just a cup manager.

His policy with youth players might preclude him, but then has Moyes really brought through that many at Everton? Of the current squad he's only brought through Hibbert, Duffy, Osman, Barkley and Anichebe (with players like Rooney and Rodwell having left).

All that said, I think Moyes is a better fit.
 
shaggy said:
Does anyone know why we are "locked in talks" with Everton? His contract is up in a few weeks time and I can't imagine he'll be demanding 150k a week?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22453895
Click to expand...

I said this many, many pages back, based on nothing at all, admittedly, but even though his contract's up I suspect we'll end up paying a reasonable amount of compensation. Maybe because it would be seen as the right thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.