The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[devilish]

I say it proves nothing at all because:
(a) it's worlds away form managing at a top club. Every other manager in the Premier League has had some sort of success.
(b) being successful at a mid table/bottom half club is dependent on time. Give a manager a little while longer after their successful period and they usually undo most of their good work, and end up lowering their reputation again.
(c) Showing that the person has 'some managerial skills and he can adapt to different situations' is literally base-level managerial stuff. Hughes, Coleman, Coyle, Martinez, Moyes, Hodgson all fit that criteria. None are good enough.

As for the last paragraph, lets look at Pochettino. What would he have to achieve at Tottenham in order to be United ready? Is this achievement realistic? Or is he then required to go to another club?

Ultimately, if the club see managerial quality in Giggs, then now is the time to hire him. Ideally he'd have a year or two managing the reserves. But not cutting ties with the club completely, because once that happens, that's it. There's very very little chance of him ever being United manager because the chances of him over-achieving enough within the English game are very slim*, whether he actually has the ability to manage united or not. Realistically the best you can do is get fourth with Tottenham/Everton once.

* I say within the English game because managers don't tend to get their first jobs at mid-table clubs when they haven't played/come from that country.

Proving yourself at a small club would be the first step of a difficult path which, if you're good enough, will land you a job at a top club.

I find this 'if he doesn't get the job out of pure nepotism than that's it' claim as defeatist and outrageous. Why would it be the case? Simeone was an Inter legend who left the club, built his managerial career from scratch (often taking short term jobs with clubs who are difficult to work with) until he landed the Atletico Madrid job. At Atletico he won all the dosh needed to be considered as one of the top managers in the world. At this point he wouldn't look out of place at Inter. Same thing can be said about many other managers such as Mourinho, Benitez etc. Why cant Ryan Giggs do the same?. Also why on earth is it so important to remain in England? LVG, Mourinho, Rafa, Wenger and even SAF had zero experience in the English game prior to joining United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. That hasn't stopped them from getting the job they wanted.

Ryan Giggs is better off than most people in football who had to rot in youth teams, work as interpreters or scouts and get temporary jobs with small clubs just to build their CV and move to a better club. He's a legend at United and have legends like LVG and SAF ready to put a good word for him. In a niche market that can open plenty of doors. Once he overachieves at a small club than it would be a matter of time before he can move to a better club. I also dont think that United will be fussy in terms of how many trophies had manager Giggs won. If Ryan Giggs can achieve a similar record to that of De Boer or Mancini than he'll get his chance.

 

[Walrus]

@Adebesi just because you dont "see something as a relevant factor" does not mean that others dont. Of course you can debate and discuss why you think or dont think these factors are relevant, but this is different to just disregarding them and claiming that the only reason anyone wants Giggs in charge is because he is a club legend.

Regarding my OP, the points stand I feel, however the discussion did and has moved on since then as well. Clearly if the club is giving out soundbites about Giggs being the next manager, and we have managed to generate 16 pages of discussion in this thread so far, then the idea isnt completely romantic and ludicrous, and is worthy of talking about.

 

[Walrus]

If Van Gaal turns out to be a failure the worry is that Giggs would have been on two coaching staffs that have failed. He got a pass during the Moyes era but he's an integral part of the Van Gaal team. Van Gaal has said as much.

I can't see him having the respect of the players under those circumstances. Most of the current squad haven't played with him.

Yeah, I think Giggs being appointed is quite circumstantial. I already said to another poster yesterday that if LVG were sacked next summer after a poor season, I dont think it would be the right scenario for Giggs to take over. His appointment for me does rely on LVG leaving behind a strong team capable of challenging for the PL, and ideally having won at least one trophy of some description during his time here.

 

[Adebesi]

@Adebesi just because you dont "see something as a relevant factor" does not mean that others dont. Of course you can debate and discuss why you think or dont think these factors are relevant, but this is different to just disregarding them and claiming that the only reason anyone wants Giggs in charge is because he is a club legend.

Regarding my OP, the points stand I feel, however the discussion did and has moved on since then as well. Clearly if the club is giving out soundbites about Giggs being the next manager, and we have managed to generate 16 pages of discussion in this thread so far, then the idea isnt completely romantic and ludicrous, and is worthy of talking about.

Not sure youve really addressed the point I was trying to make, which might mean I was rambling and didnt really make it, or not clearly. Im certainly not saying this isnt worth discussing. Im in here discussing it, Im sure ive posted here a dozen times or more - and in countless other threads discussing it over the years. Its an interesting topic, but my interest in it is that I find it quite extraordinary people - a minority, I think, but people anyway - support it.

When I talk about relevance, I dont feel I did just disregard it as irrelevant, I tried to explain why in objective terms. Say I apply for a job, they say, why should we give you this job? I say, because Im wearing a tie. But there are 5 other people being interviewed that morning, they are all wearing a tie. So what have I proved? Similarly, Giggs will have support around him. So? So will everyone else. This is not a reason to appoint him. This is, at best, something to calm your nerves if you do decide to appoint him.

A week or so ago, in this thread, I said, with Giggs, people start off with the view that they want him, and then work backwards to justify it. That is exactly what Im talking about. "He learned from the best." "He will not be alone". "He commands respect." NO way do you take a blank piece of paper, think, right, what do we need? Respect. Someone who has an entourage. Someone who played under a great manager. Right, who fits the bill....... I know, Giggs! No way. You say. Right, we want Giggs. What are his attributes. You come up with those ones and then sell him on them.

We need to take a blank piece of paper and decide what we are looking for. I fear, from what Ive read in another thread today, the club has done that and what they want, apparently, is a club man, and Im on the wrong side of this debate. Im not goign to worry about it right now but if it does transpire, it will terrify me. Honestly. Because I dont see positive reasons why people want him here, I only see people wanting him here for the reason you dont want me to say, and then a load of woolly justifications for it. I think it will end badly.

But if in 10 years he is the boss and we are playing beautiful football and, hell, maybe even winning the odd thing here and there to boot, I will say fair play to you Walrus, I was a worry wort and you had belief and you were right and I was wrong. Ill still think we took a risk, but then I thought we (The Glazers more specifically) took a risk with the LBO and that worked out OK so maybe we are blessed. Maybe we will get the fairytale and thinking about this too much was never the way. I guess the fairytale prince who went to save Sleeping Beauty from her tower didnt think too much about whether this was the best way of finding a wife, he just went for it, and maybe that is how we should conduct ourselves too. But from where Im sitting, right now, I would take a more conventional approach.

 

[redevil2]

Not totally, just pointing to other managers who have started their managerial career outside of England, come to England and been successful.

Unfortunately, LvG is not among them and I doubt he will. But I know you lot will say he's been doing a good job rebuilding, even he's just showing slow improvement form Moyes'. But sorry I digress!

Btw just read Rio has been giving his 2ps and he had been spot on IMHO.

I fear there will be more of these as journos are too happy to do their home work interviewing ex players now... It's not going to be good for our club sadly with these going on. And we know we can't blame the journos to be fair.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-united-an-identity-crisis-says-a2944346.html

 

[Cheesy]

It's not really though, is it. Two of them are players who have gone on to have careers in sports media and punditry, the other is a man who has managed United as a caretaker manager already and has been an assistant manager for what will be three seasons at that club, being under the stewardship of one of the most experienced and successful managers in the world. He deserves a chance is all im saying.

Three years as an assistant manager is hardly a wealth of experience, though. Mike Phelan's perfectly fit for the job if we're going by those credentials. Does he deserve a chance at the job? Or Quieroz? How about Steve McClaren? He's got plenty of experience as an assistant manager.

 

[Walrus]

@Adebesi
Regarding the whole "working backwards" argument, I think you are exaggerating here. Certainly for me, if the criteria I specified are met (ie that LVG leaves in 2-3 years, and leaves a good squad capable of challenging for the PL, and hopefully has won a trophy during his time here - certainly at the time of making this thread, these all seemed pretty likely and realistic) then if I am looking for "what we want from our next manager" would look something like this;

1) Continuity. LVG will have only been here for 3, maybe 4 years, and at least the first two of those can be categorised as conducting a pretty major rebuild of the squad. At this point, I would want to avoid another lengthy transitional phase, and have someone who can step in and continue what LVG has started, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and introduce a whole new philosophy and style of play.

2) Someone who can potentially be here for the long term if successful. Assuming the new coach post-LVG is not a failure, I would want someone who can ideally be here for years to come, rather than simply looking for short term success for the first few years.

3) Someone who can take the team to the next level, and convert the squad he inherits from LVG into a truly world class outfit, able to compete with the best sides in Europe.

4) Someone who will meet the demands of the fans in terms not just of success, but playing attractive, attacking football.


"Experience" for the sake of experience is nice, but it is a means to an end, not the end itself. The above are probably what I would desire from a new manager. Experience would likely play a big factor in being able to achieve some of those goals, but it is not the only factor, and I believe those goals can be met without experience. For me, Giggs easily ticks boxes 1 and 2, and if successful can also tick the other two.

 

[Walrus]

Three years as an assistant manager is hardly a wealth of experience, though. Mike Phelan's perfectly fit for the job if we're going by those credentials. Does he deserve a chance at the job? Or Quieroz? How about Steve McClaren? He's got plenty of experience as an assistant manager.

You are taking a point out of context and treating it as the sole criteria, rather than what is in fact one of many factors in the argument.

 

[Cheesy]

You are taking a point out of context and treating it as the sole criteria, rather than what is in fact one of many factors in the argument.

So what are the other managerial factors that point towards Giggs being a good choice of successor other than his experience as assistant?

 

[Walrus]

So what are the other managerial factors that point towards Giggs being a good choice of successor other than his experience as assistant?

Thats been discussed for the last 17 pages mate.

 

[Cheesy]

Thats been discussed for the last 17 pages mate.

True. But I'm still struggling to see what it is Giggs offer that makes him an ideal managerial choice.

As you've mentioned above in one of your posts, there's plenty that Giggs can offer if he turns out to be a good manager. A connection with the fans, continuity, stability, and long-term management. But that's all if he's a good manager: it's mostly the same stuff that was touted when Moyes was taking over. The stability we get from someone like Giggs automatically goes out of the window if he has a terrible first year and gets sacked.

 

[Adebesi]

True. But I'm still struggling to see what it is Giggs offer that makes him an ideal managerial choice.

That's the thing isn't it. 17 pages and I'm struggling to see it too.

 

[Adebesi]

@Adebesi
Regarding the whole "working backwards" argument, I think you are exaggerating here. Certainly for me, if the criteria I specified are met (ie that LVG leaves in 2-3 years, and leaves a good squad capable of challenging for the PL, and hopefully has won a trophy during his time here - certainly at the time of making this thread, these all seemed pretty likely and realistic) then if I am looking for "what we want from our next manager" would look something like this;

1) Continuity. LVG will have only been here for 3, maybe 4 years, and at least the first two of those can be categorised as conducting a pretty major rebuild of the squad. At this point, I would want to avoid another lengthy transitional phase, and have someone who can step in and continue what LVG has started, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and introduce a whole new philosophy and style of play.

2) Someone who can potentially be here for the long term if successful. Assuming the new coach post-LVG is not a failure, I would want someone who can ideally be here for years to come, rather than simply looking for short term success for the first few years.

3) Someone who can take the team to the next level, and convert the squad he inherits from LVG into a truly world class outfit, able to compete with the best sides in Europe.

4) Someone who will meet the demands of the fans in terms not just of success, but playing attractive, attacking football.


"Experience" for the sake of experience is nice, but it is a means to an end, not the end itself. The above are probably what I would desire from a new manager. Experience would likely play a big factor in being able to achieve some of those goals, but it is not the only factor, and I believe those goals can be met without experience. For me, Giggs easily ticks boxes 1 and 2, and if successful can also tick the other two.

Ok well this conversation is going the way of our first one in this thread so let's just leave it there.

 

[redevil2]

True. But I'm still struggling to see what it is Giggs offer that makes him an ideal managerial choice.

As you've mentioned above in one of your posts, there's plenty that Giggs can offer if he turns out to be a good manager. A connection with the fans, continuity, stability, and long-term management. But that's all if he's a good manager: it's mostly the same stuff that was touted when Moyes was taking over. The stability we get from someone like Giggs automatically goes out of the window if he has a terrible first year and gets sacked.

If you're too lazy to go through the past 17 pages to get a grip what the pro camp felt and said then nothing we can do. Anyway, you seem to have made up your mind Giggsy will fail and will have a terrible first year and get sacked. How about an incoming manager whoever it is has a terrible first year and gets sacked? Will it sooth your mood better that way?

Fact is, some fans made up their mind before things even happen. If Marital had been purchased under Moyes or when Giggs was in charge, the redcafe would have gone to meltdown calling heads. Okay Moyes was certainly out of his depth and we had no faith in his decisions.

But no you have faith in Van Gaal and even the overpriced signing appeared bizarre, weird, not appropriate you went out of your way to celebrate it's a great signing saying it will improve us... bearing in mind he's still only young and learning and will be working in a new league in a new country and god knows what burden and pressure he would be given.

Fact is, getting any manager bears some risk, and giving Giggs an honest chance may not be a bad idea (as the pros outweigh the cons and the transitioning time is easily eliminated)

 

[Man of Leisure]

I would appreciate if you (and others, to be fair) would stop making this claim, as it means either that you simply are not reading any of what is being brought up in this thread, or are simply choosing to ignore the points being brought up.

There has been some excellent and well reasoned debate in this thread with those such as @Invictus - there is quite plainly and obviously more to it than just a romantic notion of "having Giggs and the class on '92 running the club".

@Adebesi just because you dont "see something as a relevant factor" does not mean that others dont. Of course you can debate and discuss why you think or dont think these factors are relevant, but this is different to just disregarding them and claiming that the only reason anyone wants Giggs in charge is because he is a club legend.

Regarding my OP, the points stand I feel, however the discussion did and has moved on since then as well. Clearly if the club is giving out soundbites about Giggs being the next manager, and we have managed to generate 16 pages of discussion in this thread so far, then the idea isnt completely romantic and ludicrous, and is worthy of talking about.

FFS, get off your fecking high horse you tool. The only self-appointed moderator on the Caf.

 

[Man of Leisure]

being a great player commands Giggs some degree of respect and authority within the club, as he is undoubtedly a club legend. Secondly, the fact that he was able to perform at such a high level for a long time, as well as changing his role almost entirely in his latter years, and keeping himself in such excellent condition - these factors illustrate in my opinion a good level of intelligence. If Giggs had been out on the lash every Saturday night and in the tabloids, or turning up overweight in pre-season, it would reflect poorly on his professionalism and overall intelligence and therefore probably affect my (and others) opinions on his suitability as a potential manager.

The fact that you're bringing up Giggs being a great player will bring instant respect is troublesome. He should bring respect and authority on the basis of his ideas, personality, and force of will. Not anything to do with what he did on a pitch years before. These are professional footballers that he'll be managing, not someone who'd be starstruck the likes of you or me. Being a great player is certainly no recipe for success (Bryan Robson, Roy Keane, Alan Shearer, Paul Ince, John Barnes, and Diego Maradona say hi). And just ask Liverpool fans how they felt about a club legend managing them.

Now as far as your equating Giggs' longevity as some sign of his intelligence, I'd opine that freakish ability and genetics, luck, and discipline all played a bigger role. The changing of a more central position in his latter years surely has as much to do with SAF as it does with Giggs. And since you're the one who brought up intelligence, professionalism, and staying out of the tabloids, well there's that whole other business with his brother's wife. Not that I really give an actual feck, but I do so slightly more for the manager of our club than a player.

 

[Smores]

That's the thing isn't it. 17 pages and I'm struggling to see it too.

Why would there be anything to see though? He's an inexperienced assistant manager, what possible indications could he give that he'd be a great choice.

If he was chosen it would be off a romantic notion of having a fan favourite in charge, there's no point anyone pretending otherwise.

 

[Adebesi]

Why would there be anything to see though? He's an inexperienced assistant manager, what possible indications could he give that he'd be a great choice.

If he was chosen it would be off a romantic notion of having a fan favourite in charge, there's no point anyone pretending otherwise.

I agree. But when I said that Walrus pulled me up on it. Like there were dozens of tangible reasons I'd missed because of not reading posts properly. But I've done some investigation and no, it's all about staying long term and knowing the club inside out, just as I thought.

 

[Cheesy]

If you're too lazy to go through the past 17 pages to get a grip what the pro camp felt and said then nothing we can do. Anyway, you seem to have made up your mind Giggsy will fail and will have a terrible first year and get sacked. How about an incoming manager whoever it is has a terrible first year and gets sacked? Will it sooth your mood better that way?

Fact is, some fans made up their mind before things even happen. If Marital is purchased under Moyes or when Giggs was in charge, the redcafe would have gone to meltdown calling heads. But no you have faith in Van Gaal and even the overpriced signing appeared bizarre, weird, not appropriate you went out of your way to celebrate it's a great signing saying it will improve us... bearing in mind he's still only young and learning and will be working in a new league in a new country and god knows what burden and pressure he would be given.

Fact is, getting any manager bears some risk, and giving Giggs an honest chance may not be a bad idea (as the pros outweigh the cons and the transitioning time is easily eliminated)

Nope, I haven't done that. I've said that it's a very real possibility that it could happen, because he's entirely unproven, and if it does then the pros of stability, continuity etc go out the window. I don't see what's particularly bizarre about that.

You're completely making that up, too. I've stated my reservations about Martial. I think he's definitely a player with plenty of potential, but it's a massive fee for someone who's completely unproven and might be a flop. Hopefully he'll be a talent, though.

If giving Giggs an honest chance is a good idea, then why not Mike Phelan? He's got experience as our assistant manager too, after all.

 

[Cheesy]

I agree. But when I said that Walrus pulled me up on it. Like there were dozens of tangible reasons I'd missed because of not reading posts properly. But I've done some investigation and no, it's all about staying long term and knowing the club inside out, just as I thought.

Yep. The problem ultimately is that almost every pro of Giggs being our next manager depend on factors such as continuity, stability and knowing the club, which will only be beneficial if he turns out to be a good manager. And no one knows whether that's going to be the case or not.

I almost typed Moyes' name instead of Giggs in that above paragraph because the arguments for him being manager over more lauded candidates were exactly the same. I remember people stating that Moyes was a better choice than someone like Mourinho because he was a good long-term option. Worked out well, of course.

 

[redevil2]

Nope, I haven't done that. I've said that it's a very real possibility that it could happen, because he's entirely unproven, and if it does then the pros of stability, continuity etc go out the window. I don't see what's particularly bizarre about that.

You're completely making that up, too. I've stated my reservations about Martial. I think he's definitely a player with plenty of potential, but it's a massive fee for someone who's completely unproven and might be a flop. Hopefully he'll be a talent, though.

If giving Giggs an honest chance is a good idea, then why not Mike Phelan? He's got experience as our assistant manager too, after all.

That's where you don't understand the argument "for".

1. Unproven point: in comparison, Moyes is a very experienced manager and is proven (compared to Giggsy at least). What happened? LvG is proven, but he's struggling to find the right team to play even after 14 months and having a huge budget to use. "Proven" means not much in United's situation, does it?

2. Why not mike Phelan: please go back and read some posts about why Giggs is not the same ad any assistant manage. He comes in a whole package. Has Phelan been working in the same club as a player over two decades helping his team mates winning record number of trophies? Giggs had been part of Fergies success. Can Phelan or other United legends offer the same credentials as Giggs?

I am not even advocating Giggs will be the best choice but everyone has an opinion who is the best choice. Giggs is just one of the candidates who should apply and not like some of you said he needs to go out to manage minnow team first (why? hint: Moyes, and to a lesser extent LvG)

 

[Cheesy]

That's where you don't understand the argument "for".

1. Unproven point: in comparison, Moyes is a very experienced manager and is proven (compared to Giggsy at least). What happened? LvG is proven, but he's struggling to find the right team to play even after 14 months and having a huge budget to use. "Proven" means not much in United's situation, does it?

2. Why not mike Phelan: please go back and read some posts about why Giggs is not the same ad any assistant manage. He comes in a whole package. Has Phelan been working in the same club as a player over two decades helping his team mates winning record number of trophies? Giggs had been part of Fergies success. Can Phelan or other United legends offer the same credentials as Giggs? I am not even advocating Giggs will be the best choice but everyone has an opinion who is the best choice. Giggs is just one of the candidates who should apply and not like some of you said he needs to go out to manage minnow team first (why? hint: Moyes, and to a lesser extent LvG)

1. Moyes was proven as being a good manager at Everton. He was far from an incredible one though, and wasn't anywhere near good enough for us. LVG's proven, and while not being particularly brilliant, hasn't been overly awful so far. I don't see how this helps the case for Giggs in any way though, apart from showing that even top managers aren't even always successful, before we get onto ones with no experience.

2. You're talking about Giggs as a player. Again, if we're going by that, then why not appoint Neville? Or Scholes? They don't have experience as assistant manager perhaps, but are we really using Giggs' hypothetical three-year assistant tenure as proof that he's an ideal candidate to be our manager? He's learned a lot from Fergie, yes, but that's no guarantee he'll be a good manager. Charlton would've learned a ton from Busby. That didn't mean he was necessarily going to be a great manager. No one's doubting Giggs' knowledge of the game. He probably even has a good idea of what being a good manager entails. But there's a huge difference between knowing what to do, and actually being able to do it. Again, we've got no actual evidence for Giggs being a capable manage here, other than stuff that's purely hypothetical, and actually depends on him being a success. He's almost entirely a risk. If you're willing to take that risk, then fine. That's your opinion. But it is a huge, massive risk that could turn out to be a complete and utter disaster.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

How much of a mess it would be if Giggs fails, depends entirely on what state the club is in when he takes over. And, presumably, this is something the board will take into consideration when LVG leaves (whether sacked or honourably discharged).

Let's say LVG manages to win the league, the CL or at the very least a trophy (plus a couple of strong challenges) over the next couple of seasons - which is by no means impossible, nor even unrealistic - then retires. Top results are important in terms of not doing a Liverpool, keeping the winning culture alive, etc.

Secondly, LVG will in all likelihood leave a young squad behind, filled with good-to-excellent players who will have learned a great deal from him. The latter is extremely important and a major positive of having hired LVG in the first place (in my opinion): His brand of football may leave much to be desired at times, but he's a very good coach, brilliant (according to the likes of Xavi) when it comes to teaching the sort of basics any player, in any system, will improve from learning properly.

Now, in that scenario, Giggs will take over a well balanced team of well educated players who are even - hopefully - used to winning trophies at United. Good.

Well, if it should now turn out that he's hopelessly inept at being in charge, we fire him - and that's that. There shouldn't be any need of another immense overhaul, and we shouldn't be hopelessly off track in terms of winning culture, sponsor pulling power, those things that matter when it comes to bouncing back fast from taking a hit.

 

[redevil2]

1. Moyes was proven as being a good manager at Everton. He was far from an incredible one though, and wasn't anywhere near good enough for us. LVG's proven, and while not being particularly brilliant, hasn't been overly awful so far. I don't see how this helps the case for Giggs in any way though, apart from showing that even top managers aren't even always successful, before we get onto ones with no experience.

2. You're talking about Giggs as a player. Again, if we're going by that, then why not appoint Neville? Or Scholes? They don't have experience as assistant manager perhaps, but are we really using Giggs' hypothetical three-year assistant tenure as proof that he's an ideal candidate to be our manager? He's learned a lot from Fergie, yes, but that's no guarantee he'll be a good manager. Charlton would've learned a ton from Busby. That didn't mean he was necessarily going to be a great manager. No one's doubting Giggs' knowledge of the game. He probably even has a good idea of what being a good manager entails. But there's a huge difference between knowing what to do, and actually being able to do it. Again, we've got no actual evidence for Giggs being a capable manage here, other than stuff that's purely hypothetical, and actually depends on him being a success. He's almost entirely a risk. If you're willing to take that risk, then fine. That's your opinion. But it is a huge, massive risk that could turn out to be a complete and utter disaster.

My point was used to directly address the argument that "he lacks management experience in minnow club". And, i believe his uniqueness can make up for those shortcomings. But again I am not advocating he's the best candidate but he's a candidate worthy of considering.

Your mind has been made up so please no more repeating. The day Giggs is our manager I hope you swallow your humble pie.

 

[Cheesy]

My point was used to directly address the argument that "he lacks management experience in minnow club". And, i believe his uniqueness can make up for those shortcomings. But again I am not advocating he's the best candidate but he's a candidate worthy of considering.

Your mind has been made up so please no more repeating. The day Giggs is our manager I hope you swallow your humble pie.

My mind's been made up that he's an absolutely massive risk, and not one worth taking at the moment. Again though, I've not said that he's guaranteed to be a failure at any point; just that there's a strong chance he could be. Don't see any need for the snide, personal remarks because I happen to disagree with your opinion, but fair enough.

 

[Walrus]

@Cheesy @Adebesi @Smores if the notion of Giggs replacing was so utterly oundlandish, and ridiculous, and any argument pro-Giggs so obviously flawed and illogical, then there is a very simple question: Why is the club touting him as a potential successor? Even if you believe that LVG is simply toeing the company line, he would just be embarrassing himself if he was coming out with these statements in public, but behind closed doors the club knew there was no chance in it actually coming to fruition.

Do you really, honestly believe that the Glazers of all people, would be prepared to invest in a purely romantic notion of having a club legend running the club, for no other reason than that?

And no, this post isnt an argument for Giggs as manager, it is an argument for the fact that it is quite obviously a discussion worth having, with points of merit on both sides. If you cant even entertain that notion then there really isnt much more to say, and I would question what you plan to achieve in this thread.

 

[Glanville95]

Why would you assume this?

It's a small sample size, but during his four games in charge that's kind of how we played. I may be wrong, it's just an assumption.

 

[Cheesy]

@Cheesy @Adebesi @Smores if the notion of Giggs replacing was so utterly oundlandish, and ridiculous, and any argument pro-Giggs so obviously flawed and illogical, then there is a very simple question: Why is the club touting him as a potential successor? Even if you believe that LVG is simply toeing the company line, he would just be embarrassing himself if he was coming out with these statements in public, but behind closed doors the club knew there was no chance in it actually coming to fruition.

Do you really, honestly believe that the Glazers of all people, would be prepared to invest in a purely romantic notion of having a club legend running the club, for no other reason than that?

And no, this post isnt an argument for Giggs as manager, it is an argument for the fact that it is quite obviously a discussion worth having, with points of merit on both sides. If you cant even entertain that notion then there really isnt much more to say, and I would question what you plan to achieve in this thread.

Well, we appointed Moyes as manager, didn't we? It was a choice largely based on the romantic notion of him and Fergie being cut from the same cloth; that he was an ideal successor who'd be a more long-term option than established, top managers.

If the board were perfectly willing to sanction that, then why wouldn't they be willing to go for Giggs? I don't even think it's completely, utterly outlandish. It's a possibility, and if the club is going to go with any former player without managerial experience then Giggs is probably a better option than most. But I do think it's an absolutely massive risk, with most of the pros being based upon the notion that Giggs will succeed; one that we remain completely unsure on.

I don't want to come across as being too negative either: I think Giggs could potentially be a very good manager, and I'd love to see him succeed here. But I just think that we'd be taking a monumental risk, especially when we're only off the back of an absolutely disastrous appointment that was done out of what we hoped would happen long-term, as opposed to what was probably more likely to happen.

 

[redevil2]

My mind's been made up that he's an absolutely massive risk, and not one worth taking at the moment. Again though, I've not said that he's guaranteed to be a failure at any point; just that there's a strong chance he could be. Don't see any need for the snide, personal remarks because I happen to disagree with your opinion, but fair enough.

Fair enough you're entitled to your opinion and we can't stop you from fearing. Just don't let this affect your sleep though.

 

[Adebesi]

@Cheesy @Adebesi @Smores if the notion of Giggs replacing was so utterly oundlandish, and ridiculous, and any argument pro-Giggs so obviously flawed and illogical, then there is a very simple question: Why is the club touting him as a potential successor?

I'm completely stunned about it myself.

 

[Walrus]

Well, we appointed Moyes as manager, didn't we? It was a choice largely based on the romantic notion of him and Fergie being cut from the same cloth; that he was an ideal successor who'd be a more long-term option than established, top managers.

If the board were perfectly willing to sanction that, then why wouldn't they be willing to go for Giggs? I don't even think it's completely, utterly outlandish. It's a possibility, and if the club is going to go with any former player without managerial experience then Giggs is probably a better option than most. But I do think it's an absolutely massive risk, with most of the pros being based upon the notion that Giggs will succeed; one that we remain completely unsure on.

I don't want to come across as being too negative either: I think Giggs could potentially be a very good manager, and I'd love to see him succeed here. But I just think that we'd be taking a monumental risk, especially when we're only off the back of an absolutely disastrous appointment that was done out of what we hoped would happen long-term, as opposed to what was probably more likely to happen.

Romantic is the last thing I would describe Moyes as. I agree and have wrote extensively about how Moyes was appointed for the wrong reasons, but to call it a romantic appointment is just plain wrong. He was thought to be someone who could be a long term successor to Ferguson yes, there is nothing romantic about that though.

Regarding Giggs, if you prefer to look at the other side of the coin - what happens if he is not successful? Simple, he gets sacked pretty quickly, although frankly I imagine that if he could see that it wasnt working out, Giggs would be the first to offer his resignation. The talk from some of the naysayers here is as though Giggs is going to be appointed on a lifetime contract with no means of us breaking it, and that we will be stuck with him for evermore, in a trophyless abyss.
If Giggs turns out to be a shite manager, then he gets sacked - just like Moyes, and just like any other manager who doesnt do the job that is required.
If however Giggs turns out to be a good manager, then the potential upside is on an entirely different level to pretty much any other appointment, and I dont think it is a ludicrous notion that this will be the case, for the reasons laid out during this thread.

 

[Walrus]

I'm completely stunned about it myself.

At which point perhaps you should question some of your own judgements on the reasons why he could/would potential be appointed, and which of the 'factors' we were discussing earlier are actually relevant?

ie that it is in fact more than a purely romantic notion.

 

[redevil2]

Well, we appointed Moyes as manager, didn't we? It was a choice largely based on the romantic notion of him and Fergie being cut from the same cloth; that he was an ideal successor who'd be a more long-term option than established, top managers.

If the board were perfectly willing to sanction that, then why wouldn't they be willing to go for Giggs? I don't even think it's completely, utterly outlandish. It's a possibility, and if the club is going to go with any former player without managerial experience then Giggs is probably a better option than most. But I do think it's an absolutely massive risk, with most of the pros being based upon the notion that Giggs will succeed; one that we remain completely unsure on.

I don't want to come across as being too negative either: I think Giggs could potentially be a very good manager, and I'd love to see him succeed here. But I just think that we'd be taking a monumental risk, especially when we're only off the back of an absolutely disastrous appointment that was done out of what we hoped would happen long-term, as opposed to what was probably more likely to happen.

Moyes had been doing everything wrong upon himself and it has nothing to do with our decision to appoint him pie of romantic notion or not. He would still have been with us if:

1. We got top 4 (which wasn't the most difficult job in the world considering we left him a bunch of champions. He ass expected (as an experienced manager) to tweak a bit here and a bit there using the experience of his players to help him transition.

2. If we won a tin cup under him.... But no, he was so out of his depth and without even knowing the tssk at hand, thought he could get by using his own team.

It's unfortunate because he would still have been here with a huge budge at his disposal if he's a bit wiser and looks more confident. You can tell managing Everton gave him feck all experience for managing United.

 

[Cheesy]

Romantic is the last thing I would describe Moyes as. I agree and have wrote extensively about how Moyes was appointed for the wrong reasons, but to call it a romantic appointment is just plain wrong. He was thought to be someone who could be a long term successor to Ferguson yes, there is nothing romantic about that though.

Regarding Giggs, if you prefer to look at the other side of the coin - what happens if he is not successful? Simple, he gets sacked pretty quickly, although frankly I imagine that if he could see that it wasnt working out, Giggs would be the first to offer his resignation. The talk from some of the naysayers here is as though Giggs is going to be appointed on a lifetime contract with no means of us breaking it, and that we will be stuck with him for evermore, in a trophyless abyss.
If Giggs turns out to be a shite manager, then he gets sacked - just like Moyes, and just like any other manager who doesnt do the job that is required.
If however Giggs turns out to be a good manager, then the potential upside is on an entirely different level to pretty much any other appointment, and I dont think it is a ludicrous notion that this will be the case, for the reasons laid out during this thread.

Moyes was a bit of a romantic appointment, though. He and Fergie were seen to be cut from the same cloth: honest, hard-working Glasweigans who'd succeeded down south, while remaining loyal to a club over a long period of time. Moyes wouldn't have gotten the job had he been from anywhere other than Scotland, yet performed exactly the same with Everton. That might sound ridiculous, but I think it's partly true. I believe that the club projected aspects of Fergie onto Moyes, whilst forgetting the differences between the two men.

Giggs would probably get sacked quickly, but why are we looking at it in that direction? Surely you shouldn't be appointing a manager under the pretense that, "If he's shite, he gets sacked quickly." We should be looking at someone who we fully expect to be successful, especially considering we've hit one of our worst periods since the early Fergie era in recent times. It's important that we try to establish ourselves as a title-winning club again, and in order to do that I feel like we should be looking at candidates who are a lot more likely to guarantee us success in the time-being.

 

[Cheesy]

Moyes had been doing everything wrong upon himself and it has nothing to do with our decision to appoint him pie of romantic notion or not. He would still have been with us if:

1. We got top 4 (which wasn't the most difficult job in the world considering we left him a bunch of champions. He ass expected (as an experienced manager) to tweak a bit here and a bit there using the experience of his players to help him transition.

2. If we won a tin cup under him.... But no, he was so out of his depth and without even knowing the tssk at hand, thought he could get by using his own team.

It's unfortunate because he would still have been here with a huge budge at his disposal if he's a bit wiser and looks more confident. You can tell managing Everton gave him feck all experience for managing United.

I'm not talking about Moyes' tenure in itself though; I'm talking about the basis upon which we appointed him. The reasoning was largely similar to why we're now considering appointing Giggs. Eerily similar, actually.

 

[redevil2]

I'm not talking about Moyes' tenure in itself though; I'm talking about the basis upon which we appointed him. The reasoning was largely similar to why we're now considering appointing Giggs. Eerily similar, actually.

fair enough but if not for his total failure and embarrassment, we might have a case of having a british manager who is not the Jose Pep type and stay with us for 10 years and more, even we won't be as successful. For we all know we won't have another SAF. Yet we would still be up there or there about. It's not impossible. That scenario is way better than we change manager three times in 5 years right?

 

[Walrus]

Moyes was a bit of a romantic appointment, though. He and Fergie were seen to be cut from the same cloth: honest, hard-working Glasweigans who'd succeeded down south, while remaining loyal to a club over a long period of time. Moyes wouldn't have gotten the job had he been from anywhere other than Scotland, yet performed exactly the same with Everton. That might sound ridiculous, but I think it's partly true. I believe that the club projected aspects of Fergie onto Moyes, whilst forgetting the differences between the two men.

Giggs would probably get sacked quickly, but why are we looking at it in that direction? Surely you shouldn't be appointing a manager under the pretense that, "If he's shite, he gets sacked quickly." We should be looking at someone who we fully expect to be successful, especially considering we've hit one of our worst periods since the early Fergie era in recent times. It's important that we try to establish ourselves as a title-winning club again, and in order to do that I feel like we should be looking at candidates who are a lot more likely to guarantee us success in the time-being.

The Moyes discussion is ultimately for another thread - I agree that he was appointed for the wrong reasons, that we basically tried to find Ferguson-lite. The thing about that whole saga which amused me is that it was the complete opposite decision making process to when replacing a great player. When Keane or Scholes retired, we didnt try to find another Keane or Scholes because they were unique.
Moyes was a disaster because we didnt need another empire-builder, another Ferguson at that time. We needed someone of proven quality and experience to take over and steady the ship - like a Mourinho or LVG. But I digress.

Going back to Giggs, the only reason we are looking at this side of the discussion is because you and others commented before that we were looking too much at "if he succeeds" - so I am simply offering the other side of the coin of "if he fails", which is that he gets sacked, we call it a lesson learned and bring in a big name manager.

 

[Adebesi]

At which point perhaps you should question some of your own judgements on the reasons why he could/would potential be appointed, and which of the 'factors' we were discussing earlier are actually relevant?

No.

Listen, people who know him much better than I do will make this decision. And we'll watch and see what happens. Nothing the club has said so far, or anyone in this thread so far for that matter, convinces me. But it looks like we'll see for ourselves anyway, ludicrous as that seems to me. And maybe there is something they've seen that cannot be communicated in words to people who haven't seen it with their own eyes. Something intangible.

Or maybe they want someone who knows the club inside out. Because, you know.... Finding out about a new club is too time consuming.

Or maybe they think it'll be popular with the fans. Or cheaper than getting a galactico manager. Or maybe Giggs has some dirt on Woodward.

Or maybe we'll be going through more "rebuilding fun" in the near future.

Anyway, we'll see.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Well, we appointed Moyes as manager, didn't we? It was a choice largely based on the romantic notion of him and Fergie being cut from the same cloth...

I don't think it was, actually.

I think the Glazers' decision was - simply - to leave it to Fergie to pick his successor. What they hoped to achieve was obviously what you suggest, i.e. that he would be carrying on in the same vein, but the choice wasn't "romantic" in the sense that they favoured those of Moyes' qualities which would fit the "United way" notion which largely exists solely among the club's fans * (not its owners, I suspect).

There's a difference there worth pointing out, I think.

The Glazers are in it for the money, that has to be the basic assumption here. They don't care about romanticism.

* And people like Gary Neville, but he IS a fan as much as anything.

 

[NoPace]

I can't see choosing Giggs over Klopp or Emery or another solid, not so old coach who has won meaningful things and appears to be sane and forward thinking.

Guardiola is a footballing genius, so he was up for the job, but is Giggs that kind of mind?