The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[legball]

Apart from who he is, what makes Giggs qualified for the role? He has not shown anything so far, he worked with Moyes, and is now working with LVG, is that enough? He needs to manage a team somewhere, then show something atleast. Guardiola managed Barca B team, and showed potential there, they also had a lot of world class players [we don't have many].

We are in transition, we need to be very careful. We are yet to recover from the stupid decision to appoint David Moyes, another bad managerial decision and we could become Liverpool. Appointing Giggs after LVG can turn out to be a masterstroke, it can also go terribly wrong, because, in management, he's totally an unknown quantity, so, why can't we reduce the risk to the minimum by appointing someone who is as close to a sure thing in football as there is or ever was, Pep Guardiola, there's a strong possibility he'll be available in that time, other better managers could be available, like Klopp, so, if these 2 are available, why don't we just do the sensible thing and go for one of them?

I don't fancy the idea of Giggs after LVG, especially if Guardiola & Klopp are available.

 

[Stack]

Oh come on. Are we now saying Giggs' playing career is unique because he has experienced pressure, success and disappointment? For someone who doesnt think Giggs should be our next manager, you are remarkably keen to elevate the fairly general experiences he has had as a footballer to make them sound special.

I didnt say this was unique. Managers have to be able to handle pressure, success disappointment etc. Im saying his experiences with these things are valuable facets to his ability to manage.

I am not arguing for Giggs to be our next manager. I am arguing against those that are trying to diminish the importance of all the various things he has experienced during his playing career as being valuable tools. His career working under Fergie is I would argue far more valuable than that of say Tim Sherwoods experiences. I am arguing that working under LVG is a valuable experience.

There are a bunch of other more relevant and pertinent reasons why he shouldnt be the next manager.

Im not talking about his achievements as a player, Im talking about what he has been exposed to as a player.

The sad thing is that some of us who dont want him as the next manager are spending more time trying to belittle his playing career and exposure to seriously impressive managers methods as being insignificant.

 

[Ronnie O'Sullivan]

Another spell as assistant manager under Ancelotti, Klopp or Guardiola would make him ready

 

[Walrus]

Another spell as assistant manager under Ancelotti, Klopp or Guardiola would make him ready

No doubt this would benefit him, but this line of thought does confuse me a bit - serving under another manager would not grant Giggs the experience that people are asking for. If he isnt deemed as ready when LVG retires, then I cant see how he would be deemed as ready after another few years as AM.

 

[ravelston]

Because he is "United through and through" and "knows the club inside out". In a sense isnt that what all the calls for Giggs to be manager are really about?

Not for me. If all he had was 25 years under SAF I wouldn't go near him. If, under LvG, we manage to fix the youth system and build a structure into the club that is capable of delivering players that have been brought up in a consistent playing system, and if Giggs has played a leading role in this and has bought into the playing system, then (and only then) would I view him as a candidate. In whatever direction we are going, we need continuity across the club. Any changes we make in the way we recruit and train at the most junior levels are going to take 7 or 8 years even to affect the Academy, and then another 4 or 5 to reach the first team squad. Constancy of vision is important. Chopping and changing managers is the worst thing we can do. If Giggs is capable of doing a good (not necessarily brilliant) job - and that's a judgement the club will have to make based on information and observations that we are not privy to - I would go for continuity and take the risk. (If I thought he was going to revert to "the United way" I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.) Any manager is a risk - you only have to look at Real to see that continually switching to the flavour of the month is not a panacea. I would much rather put my money on a quiet evolution.

 

[Attila]

I will repeat my question from early - do you genuinely, honestly believe that the Glazers and those in charge of the decision making process, would base a decision of this importance on purely romantic reasons?

Like it or not, the club appears to be backing Giggs to take over from LVG, and I think you would have to be mental to believe that they are doing so purely on "club legend" grounds.

I think the Glazers are doing the same they did in hiring Moyes. Appointing someone who is a massive risk in hope we find another Ferguson who will stick around for years

 

[Cheesy]

Not for me. If all he had was 25 years under SAF I wouldn't go near him. If, under LvG, we manage to fix the youth system and build a structure into the club that is capable of delivering players that have been brought up in a consistent playing system, and if Giggs has played a leading role in this and has bought into the playing system, then (and only then) would I view him as a candidate. In whatever direction we are going, we need continuity across the club. Any changes we make in the way we recruit and train at the most junior levels are going to take 7 or 8 years even to affect the Academy, and then another 4 or 5 to reach the first team squad. Constancy of vision is important. Chopping and changing managers is the worst thing we can do. If Giggs is capable of doing a good (not necessarily brilliant) job - and that's a judgement the club will have to make based on information and observations that we are not privy to - I would go for continuity and take the risk. (If I thought he was going to revert to "the United way" I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.) Any manager is a risk - you only have to look at Real to see that continually switching to the flavour of the month is not a panacea. I would much rather put my money on a quiet evolution.

While it's true that changing managers constantly has certainly hurt Real Madrid, I don't think a managerial change every so often does that much harm to a club if you've got the right foundations in place.

Look at Barcelona. From 2008-2015, they've had four different managers, yet they're still the most successful club in that period across Europe. Granted, you could argue that it'd be even better for them if Guardiola had stayed long-term, but they have demonstrated that you can switch managers fairly regularly and still be successful if you're making ideal choices and have good foundations in place.

The problem with solely relying on someone staying for a long time is that it can all easily change, even if that particular manager is doing well. Again, Guardiola's the perfect example - barring 2011/2012, which was hardly a disastrous season, he'd done a perfect job at Barca. Yet he still decided to move on. We could quite easily give Giggs the job, and after three seasons of success, he decides he needs a break and wants to move on to a new challenge. Unlikely perhaps, but I think it's dangerous for a club to base their entire foundation on a manager staying long-term. Clubs can still be successful with a regular turnover of managers, even if one long-term one (like Fergie), is more ideal.

 

[Attila]

If Van Gaal doesn't succeed in his time at United it would be weird hiring the assistant manager to two managers who have failed

 

[Cheesy]

I think the Glazers are doing the same they did in hiring Moyes. Appointing someone who is a massive risk in hope we find another Ferguson who will stick around for years

As I've said in my post just above, I think that's a dangerous idea. If we don't want to go for a notorious short-term manager like Mourinho, then fair enough, but looking at how long a manager is going to stay is a poor way of judging whether they should get the job or not. Even if Giggs is successful, he could still decide he's had enough after a couple of years. We'll be extremely lucky, and unlikely, to find someone like Fergie who stays for a couple of decades again. I mean, I'm struggling to think of one major club in Europe (bar Wenger at Arsenal), who have had the same manager for an incredibly long period of time.

 

[Adebesi]

Not for me. If all he had was 25 years under SAF I wouldn't go near him. If, under LvG, we manage to fix the youth system and build a structure into the club that is capable of delivering players that have been brought up in a consistent playing system, and if Giggs has played a leading role in this and has bought into the playing system, then (and only then) would I view him as a candidate. In whatever direction we are going, we need continuity across the club. Any changes we make in the way we recruit and train at the most junior levels are going to take 7 or 8 years even to affect the Academy, and then another 4 or 5 to reach the first team squad. Constancy of vision is important. Chopping and changing managers is the worst thing we can do. If Giggs is capable of doing a good (not necessarily brilliant) job - and that's a judgement the club will have to make based on information and observations that we are not privy to - I would go for continuity and take the risk. (If I thought he was going to revert to "the United way" I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.) Any manager is a risk - you only have to look at Real to see that continually switching to the flavour of the month is not a panacea. I would much rather put my money on a quiet evolution.

No argument from me there, especially on the bolded part.

I have softened by longevity fetish from the days, a few seasons ago, when I - like Walrus now - still thought appointing the long term candidate was among the most important factors. But I havent abandoned it altogether. I would still certainly want to make sure we give managers sufficient time, I wouldnt be sacking managers for not winning the CL in a season they won the league, or for coming second in the league, or simply because after 2 seasons we wanted a new face. But I no longer see it as the (or a) deciding factor, because I think we will be inclined that way anyway. It isnt like there are two ways: the real Madrid way, the managerial merry-go-round; or the United way, where a manager gets 25+ years. There is a lot of ground between those two positions. If Van Gaal stays for 3 or 4 years, and the next manager comes in and has another 5 or so, I am comfortable with that now. I think making an appointment with a view to 10 years down the line is the wrong way around: success breeds longevity as much as longevity breeds success. Both are true. As in, a manager given time to fully execute his vision has more chance of being successful. But a successful manager will be given more time.

I think Im rambling now to be honest. But to bring it back to Giggs: I guess I agree that: "If, under LvG, we manage to fix the youth system and build a structure into the club that is capable of delivering players that have been brought up in a consistent playing system, and if Giggs has played a leading role in this and has bought into the playing system, then (and only then) would I view him as a candidate." That is a lot of "ifs". And as you say, the whole thing will be decided without us really knowing what is going on. But if the people making this decision do judge that Giggs has played a leading role in rebuilding our youth system, that will count massively in his favour. And we would then be in a position where he did have something tangible, more than just his length of service, to sell himself on.

Id probably be more comfortable with him being given the reserves, where he would still have that influence over the youth setup you are talking about, and we would still benefit from that continuity. I am quite eager for him to actually have some experience managing something, and if that isnt going to be another club, it could be internal - but not the top job. That would be my preference. But as you said, if those criteria had been met, and if they went for it, it would make some sense.

I guess as Walrus (again) repeatedly stressed yesterday, if they do give him the job, there will be a reason for it. And the fact that I cant see the reason does not make that reason invalid. So I will just have to trust the right decision will be made. All I can say is with the limited evidence I have available to me, it doesnt look right. And what's more, despite the hints that have been dropped about it, I still cant believe it will happen.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If Van Gaal doesn't succeed in his time at United it would be weird hiring the assistant manager to two managers who have failed

Unless it's part of a grander plan.

Depends on what "success" is defined as. The story I'm reading here - IF we're actually grooming Giggs for the job - goes more or less like this: LVG handles the rebuild which is necessary, he brings in a new squad (basically) and educates 'em all.

Giggs takes over a perfectly balanced squad - and presto.

Failure is relative, in other words.

As is success, one might add. I doubt many on here would welcome Phelan as our next manager - and his credentials as an assistant, in terms of "success", are beyond reproach.

EDIT Might also add that Giggs' year as Moyes' assistant will have taught him some invaluable lessons too. The sort of stuff you can't buy, in fact: Seeing how Moyes failed at managing one of the world's biggest football clubs, first hand, adds something quite unique to Giggs' CV, even though it would appear as a blemish if you're only staring blankly at statistics.

 

[ravelston]

While it's true that changing managers constantly has certainly hurt Real Madrid, I don't think a managerial change every so often does that much harm to a club if you've got the right foundations in place.

Look at Barcelona. From 2008-2015, they've had four different managers, yet they're still the most successful club in that period across Europe. Granted, you could argue that it'd be even better for them if Guardiola had stayed long-term, but they have demonstrated that you can switch managers fairly regularly and still be successful if you're making ideal choices and have good foundations in place.

The problem with solely relying on someone staying for a long time is that it can all easily change, even if that particular manager is doing well. Again, Guardiola's the perfect example - barring 2011/2012, which was hardly a disastrous season, he'd done a perfect job at Barca. Yet he still decided to move on. We could quite easily give Giggs the job, and after three seasons of success, he decides he needs a break and wants to move on to a new challenge. Unlikely perhaps, but I think it's dangerous for a club to base their entire foundation on a manager staying long-term. Clubs can still be successful with a regular turnover of managers, even if one long-term one (like Fergie), is more ideal.

Barcelona is a great example. They have what we haven't - a solid foundation in place. (Although there's been a lot of talk recently about the current regime letting it fall into disrepair.) If you have the foundation and choose managers who buy into the underlying structure, the change is going to be much more manageable. I just hope that we can get there. I'd hate for SAF's legacy to be a club that becomes increasingly dysfunctional.

 

[ravelston]

No argument from me there, especially on the bolded part.

I have softened by longevity fetish from the days, a few seasons ago, when I - like Walrus now - still thought appointing the long term candidate was among the most important factors. But I havent abandoned it altogether. I would still certainly want to make sure we give managers sufficient time, I wouldnt be sacking managers for not winning the CL in a season they won the league, or for coming second in the league, or simply because after 2 seasons we wanted a new face. But I no longer see it as the (or a) deciding factor, because I think we will be inclined that way anyway. It isnt like there are two ways: the real Madrid way, the managerial merry-go-round; or the United way, where a manager gets 25+ years. There is a lot of ground between those two positions. If Van Gaal stays for 3 or 4 years, and the next manager comes in and has another 5 or so, I am comfortable with that now. I think making an appointment with a view to 10 years down the line is the wrong way around: success breeds longevity as much as longevity breeds success. Both are true. As in, a manager given time to fully execute his vision has more chance of being successful. But a successful manager will be given more time.

I think Im rambling now to be honest. But to bring it back to Giggs: I guess I agree that: "If, under LvG, we manage to fix the youth system and build a structure into the club that is capable of delivering players that have been brought up in a consistent playing system, and if Giggs has played a leading role in this and has bought into the playing system, then (and only then) would I view him as a candidate." That is a lot of "ifs". And as you say, the whole thing will be decided without us really knowing what is going on. But if the people making this decision do judge that Giggs has played a leading role in rebuilding our youth system, that will count massively in his favour. And we would then be in a position where he did have something tangible, more than just his length of service, to sell himself on.

Id probably be more comfortable with him being given the reserves, where he would still have that influence over the youth setup you are talking about, and we would still benefit from that continuity. I am quite eager for him to actually have some experience managing something, and if that isnt going to be another club, it could be internal - but not the top job. That would be my preference. But as you said, if those criteria had been met, and if they went for it, it would make some sense.

I guess as Walrus (again) repeatedly stressed yesterday, if they do give him the job, there will be a reason for it. And the fact that I cant see the reason does not make that reason invalid. So I will just have to trust the right decision will be made. All I can say is with the limited evidence I have available to me, it doesnt look right. And what's more, despite the hints that have been dropped about it, I still cant believe it will happen.

Agreed. It's possible that LvG is just playing with the media - he has a tendency to throw things back at them - apparently just for the fun of it. He may be viewing the Giggs for manager thing as a long running joke. Can't help what Giggs thinks about it - has anyone asked him?

 

[Invictus]

Just to address the longevity bit, in my opinion, the club, and the decision-makers involved in appointing the next manager should attach the least amount of importance to that. It's really easy to get pulled into the sappy notion of managers lasting decades, it makes a lot of sporting and fiscal sense, and to be fair, the plan does have a lot of appeal, but there's a massive difference between theory and practice. The best way to go about it would be to bypass the concept completely on a conscious level, and take things bit by bit. Is the candidate able to deliver success on a consistent basis? Is the candidate fairly stable? Will the candidate honor the loyalty the club shows to him? Take it from there, and renew his contract to reciprocate the feeling of royalty and respect.

No one can say with any form of certainty that Fergie's appointment for one, was largely predicated on him lasting for the long haul. Similar for Sir Matt, who was our longest tenure manager before Fergie came along. Doubt the Arsenal board thought Wenger would last two decades either. When Giggs himself was coming through, did anyone really genuinely believe he would surpass Sir Bobby's appearance record? There are too many variables involved in these type of long term situations, and the end result is often because of sheer luck, or a series of circumstances coinciding one piece at a time like in a puzzle, with the timing of key events being a large determinant.

The idea of Giggs being a long term option is enticing in theory, even for those apprehensive about his appointment, afterall, what could be better than someone who has a 30 year association with the club leading it through another couple of decades of unbridled success? But will he reinvent himself every season in the way Fergie did to keep up with the times? Can he handle the workload through all the years, when even some great managers eventually wear out? Can he keep the squad fresh and hungry every season, and motivate them to maintain an upward trajectory? Can he handle the burden of managerial (not him as a player mind, that's an entirely separate entity) expectations, and promote the culture of success with each passing seasons?

There are large question marks over all of those sub-issues, and probably a dozen more, just from the longevity perspective. Which is why I can't fully grasp the argument for him being a sure-fire long term option like people profess him to potentially be, just yet. Let's just focus on the short term first, or even take it by a year to year basis, and see if the desire, and hunger, and adaptability remains to go with suitable levels of success, after that sure, aim for the longer haul. But let's not get ahead of ourselves when decision time comes, let's focus on more important criteria, than tangential doe-eyed stuff that might backfire.

 

[Walrus]

@Invictus I agree with some of what you are saying there, but I think you have ended up over-simplifying it a little bit when speaking about longevity. It isnt just a case of saying "Giggs is a long term option", but rather looking at potential

By and large, and as @Adebesi said - success breeds longevity and vice versa. I am sure if someone bothered to do so, there would be a positive correlation between "success" and "length of tenure" when looking at top clubs. That said however, you can get a fair gauge for how long a manager may stay in a job before wanted to leave of his own volition (if we disregard success/getting sacked) on their age and track record. Guardiola managed the best team in the world, but he got bored after a few years and wanted a new challenge. Mourinho and Ancelotti have both frequently only lasted 2-3 years in various posts, regardless of success. I dont think you could hire one of those two and reasonably expect them to stay for 5+ years for example, even if they were winning silverware every year. You might get a slightly longer lifespan out of Guardiola, but he is (as @Invictus stated earlier in this thread) a workaholic, and I could see him easily burning himself out in the PL after a few years.

Age is an obvious factor as well. When we hired LVG he made it clear it would be his last job, and realistically I dont think anyone is expecting him to stay longer than the 17/18 season at best (or worst depending on your opinion of him). Even if he had come in, built a world class side and won the treble, we wouldnt be getting two decades out of him.

How much weight (if any) you place on "expected tenure" when appointing a manager is ultimately a matter of opinion, and whilst it may not be realistic to expect another Fergie/Busby/Wenger sort of situation, I think there would be some reservations at the other end of the scale, when it comes to managers who are unlikely to stay 5 years, let alone 10. It comes back round to continuity and a point I discussed earlier with Invictus that United give a lot of power and control to the manager. Where other clubs may have a DoF or similar role, we do not. This makes a big difference when talking about continuity. If you have a man at the rudder who is overseeing a 5+ year plan, looking at youth, organising/being involved with transfers etc, then it probably doesnt matter if you change manager every couple of years, as long as you still have someone overseeing that long term plan. For United though, the manager has total control - and therefore if you change that manager every couple of years then I think it can potentially be disastrous.

You can draw parallels to the [rest of the] business world, when a company is appointing a CEO or MD. The company will typically have a pretty detailed medium/long term strategy, and will hire someone who can fit in with that. At United, again, all the power is given to the manager.


Now, if we want to discuss whether United should have a DoF or similar figure, then that is another debate (I certainly think that if we dont think we can expect 5 years on average from a manager, then we should employ someone to handle the longer term evolution and strategy of the team), but at the moment I dont think that is going to happen - Woodward is CEO and he is very much a businessman, not a football man. I cant see us introducing a DoF as well as Woody and the manager, and therefore I think that longevity needs to be a factor for us when appointing that manager.

 

[Adebesi]

If I knew you in real life @Walrus I would offer you a bet at this point that Mourinho will be at Chelsea for more than 5 years. Not necessarily from here, but from his most recent appointment at Chelsea. I would actually consider betting that he will be there for 5 years from here. I think he has sown his managerial seed, so to speak. He has travelled around Europe, managed big clubs, got that record he wanted about winning the league in the 3 big European leagues (plus Portugal) - he hasnt done it in Germany but he appeared to belittle the German league anyway, it doesnt look like that is on his to-do list.

Its neither here nor there in the scheme of things but I guess if I am correct (and who knows you might even agree, though I imagine you dont from what you wrote above) it shows its not always as simple as you are making out, identifying Mourinho as a short term manager. Its about being in the right place at the right time. I think he and Abromovich have learnt a lot in the last few years and I think both will be more happy with what they have now.

Similarly, I think if we had appointed Mourinho instead of Moyes, I think he would have been here for a long time too. But that's a debate for another thread. Or not.

 

[Invictus]

@Walrus

Fair enough, but I do think it's a bit disingenuous to club both Mourinho and Ancelotti in the same 2-3 year category. The reason I say this is, even though Mourinho has the ability to manage a team for 5+ years (might do so at Chelsea, we'll see), he was unlikely to do so (especially in the past, seems to have mellowed down a bit) because of his stubborn and volatile personality. Just like with his mentor Van Gaal, there's a risk of complete meltdown when things aren't going his way, and he morphs into an egoistic baby that threatens to demolish everything he built, and plants a seed of conflict at almost every club he manages.

Ancelotti meanwhile, is extremely serene by nature, and could be wrong here, but he is perfectly capable of staying at a club, and planting deep roots. The fact that he hasn't done so in the past (aside from Milan), is due to a mixture of him progressing to higher level with each change (Reggiana to Parma, Parma to Juventus, PSG to Real Madrid), or getting sacked (Juventus, Chelsea, Real Madrid). He is at a stage of his career, and life, where he has ridden the managerial carousel to its fullest - he has managed two of the biggest clubs in Italy (and categorically stated he doesn't prefer the culture of Serie A when questioned about a comeback), the biggest club in Spain, the biggest (at present) club in France, and Chelsea. If he comes to United, and succeeds, there is no incentive to him leaving the club, especially at a time when the Premier League is experiencing a financial boom, which should keep the club competing at the highest level year in and year out. Realistically speaking, which club would be an upgrade for him? He has been to Madrid, and Barcelona are unlikely to ever appoint him. And he's still just 56 years old, which gives him sufficient time to stay at the club for the long haul.

From the other premier candidates, Klopp has a similar kind of personality. Even though he's externally quite boisterous, Klopp really values a sense of loyalty, evidenced by his stint at Mainz, where he also spent his entire senior playing career (stuck around as a manager, even after relegation), and Dortmund (could have thrown a strop, and joined more higher profile clubs, but stayed, repeatedly said he intended on honoring his contract, and even agreed to a new deal, before ultimately splitting up with mutual consent). He's the type of character that like Fergie, or Wenger, would prefer to create a legacy at one club than shuttling around ever so often.

Here's a brief excerpt, kind of detailing into his arrival at Dortmund :

Taking over the reigns at Dortmund in 2008, the then forty one year old immediately fell head over heels. Surrounded by the best fans in the world, he started to reinvigorate the club, taking them to Supercup success in his first season and leading them to a respectable sixth place.

Sounds like the club we all support doesn't it? Honestly think he would fall in love with United for very similar reasons.

Bit more :

A passionate man, the former Mainz trainer often lets his emotions get the better of him, ‘we want to fight for our life, and we want to make our parents proud. We want to do everything we can to win this final. If we win, we are not the best team in the world-but we beat the best team in the world!’ he exclaimed before a cup game.

That highlights the fact that he's very much a family man with strong ideals, something that was reinforced by the amount of trust he put in his players, and the relationship he had with the fans.

Dunno why, but I get the distinct feeling that Ed Woodward would like to bring Klopp to Old Trafford despite the disappointment of Dortmund's 2014/ 2015 season, he's stated in the past that he really admired the German, and his body of work at Dortmund, even called him a genius in an interview with Mitten IIRC.

He speculated whether Jose Mourinho's CV could find its way back on a desk at Man United in the not-too-distant future but also added: "I know for a fact that Woodward has said that Jurgen Klopp is a genius and there is a clear admiration there."

http://www.newstalk.com/Will-Man-United-sack-Moyes-if-fans-revolt

Probably something to monitor if we falter this season, or Klopp is available whenever Van Gaal leaves.

Like you, I'm a bit more apprehensive about Guardiola, and whether he would stay 5+ years, to be honest. Apart from the burnout factor and exhaustive work ethic as you rightly mentioned, there's always the specter of Barcelona hanging around him, he might well decide to pack his bags and return home if everything falls into place, and his allies are on the board (despite public denials). Or he might even get disillusioned with football altogether, and walk away from management, bit like his biggest inspirations - Johan Cruyff and Arrigo Sacchi who felt they no longer had the burning desire to prove themselves, and wanted to leave at a relative high, maybe even venture into the administrative side of things.

 

[Walrus]

@Adebesi I know what you mean, and I was also of the opinion when Jose rejoined Chelsea that he was now ready to "settle down" after spending the youth of his managerial years going around playing the field, so to speak.

However - and this may be a little be knee-jerkish - in his second stint at Chelsea I dont think he has been all that convincing. Last year they won the league comfortably of course, and they had the best squad, but some of the football and tactics in the game games was utterly dour. This season, he has already had the fiasco with the medical team, and suddenly his side arent looking quite so all-conquering. He seems to be on the verge of one of the meltdowns that @Invictus just described in his post, where he becomes a bit petulant and childish. I am simply not sure if he has the personality to be able to stay at a club for an extended period without causing some sort of conflict that results in him leaving or being sacked.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that Abramovich may adopt the attitude that he was stupid to let Jose go the first time round, and is prepared to be patient with him this time and give him whatever he needs. We will see.


@Invictus - Klopp is definitely a character where I can see loyalty as being important to him, hence why I havent mentioned him amongst the others when talking about short-term track records. Ancelotti I think you describe perfectly as serene, and someone who is more likely to stay at a club for longer, if he is allowed to (ie not sacked). My biggest concerns with Klopp are that a) He doesnt have quite the same sort of track record of success as some of the others we have spoken about, and b) He is one where I would expect potentially quite a hefty transitional phase if he were to replace LVG.

As you say and we have spoken about already, a lot of it depends on when we replace LVG, and what sort of shape the team is in. I am already on record as saying that if we have a poor season this year, and LVG leaves/is sacked next summer, then Giggs should not be the one to take over - it would be too early, and there would be too much pressure for instant improvement and success. In this scenario, Klopp would probably be my pick for the reasons you identified, although I would regard it as quite a risky appointment and not be 100% confident of him succeeding here, to be honest - but much like Giggs, I would deem it a risk worth taking.

 

[red_devil83]

What merits?

He's one of the biggest legends this club has ever had and if he goes on to be moderately successful as a manager - ie a league and a few cups then it would complete the legend and immortalise him

 

[Lynk]

He's one of the biggest legends this club has ever had and if he goes on to be moderately successful as a manager - ie a league and a few cups then it would complete the legend and immortalise him

great player =/= a great manager.

 

[Stack]

He's one of the biggest legends this club has ever had and if he goes on to be moderately successful as a manager - ie a league and a few cups then it would complete the legend and immortalise him

That isnt really a merit is it?. Its more of a romantic ideal?

 

[Lynk]

That isnt really a merit is it?. Its more of a romantic ideal?

It's almost like he's putting Giggs' triumphs over Manchester United's

 

[Adebesi]

@Adebesi I know what you mean, and I was also of the opinion when Jose rejoined Chelsea that he was now ready to "settle down" after spending the youth of his managerial years going around playing the field, so to speak.

However - and this may be a little be knee-jerkish - in his second stint at Chelsea I dont think he has been all that convincing. Last year they won the league comfortably of course, and they had the best squad, but some of the football and tactics in the game games was utterly dour. This season, he has already had the fiasco with the medical team, and suddenly his side arent looking quite so all-conquering. He seems to be on the verge of one of the meltdowns that @Invictus just described in his post, where he becomes a bit petulant and childish. I am simply not sure if he has the personality to be able to stay at a club for an extended period without causing some sort of conflict that results in him leaving or being sacked.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that Abramovich may adopt the attitude that he was stupid to let Jose go the first time round, and is prepared to be patient with him this time and give him whatever he needs. We will see.

Ha ha yeah, fair play, my bet would certainly have looked safer a month or two ago.

 

[Dong Fangzhuo]

As much as I'd love for Giggs to become our Pep, it's hard to see any real argument for him as next United manager. "Club legend" doesn't really qualify him. That's not to say he'd be guaranteed to fail, just that we have no idea about his managerial ability and as such, it's hard to make a good case for him.

 

[Stack]

Lets just pretend for a moment that Giggs is actually going to take over from LVG, a smart move to give him a better chance of success would be to make him the manager of the reserve side. In some ways running a reserve side can be harder to manage than a senior side, for example you dont know what players will be included in the 1st team training and match day squads each week so you end up working with very disrupted team selections.

 

[McUnited]

Lets just pretend for a moment that Giggs is actually going to take over from LVG, a smart move to give him a better chance of success would be to make him the manager of the reserve side. In some ways running a reserve side can be harder to manage than a senior side, for example you dont know what players will be included in the 1st team training and match day squads each week so you end up working with very disrupted team selections.

I think this would make me more open to the idea of him taking over the top job at some point. The managerial job is too complex and too important to learn on the hoof. I suspect all assistant managers that have transitioned to the manager's job have found things to be much different - when the buck stops with you, every decision becomes more pressurised and adds much greater responsibility.

In addition to what you mention, I think a vital component - perhaps the most important asset of being a manager - is the skill of getting the best out of every player. Until he actually runs a side, Giggs' Motivational/man-management skills won't be tested/evident.

 

[McUnited]

I really dont think they are important attributes for a manager though. They are impressive achievements for him as a player, no doubt. Nobody would ever (I hope) take that away from him. But they dont belong on his CV when applying for a manager's job.

Let's look at the clauses.

He's been at the club for twenty years - is there actually ANY correlation between success and history with a club? SAF: new to United (and every other club he managed) - success. Mourinho: moved around, successful everywhere, without history. Clough: dont think he had any history with Derby or Forest before managing them? Wenger: No history with Arsenal before managing them. Of coruse there are examples of people who have been successful at a club they had a history with, but that is because we are not saying there is inverse correlation, we are saying there is no correlation (or negligible correlation).
He was a great footballer - As was Keane, Robson, Bruce, Ince, Hughes... Ill tell you who wasnt a great footballer: SAF. His career was pretty modest, it was OK, but it was unspectacular. Moutrinho's and Wenger's was even worse. THIS IS NOT A FACTOR.
He's done some coaching badges - this is a prerequisite, not an advantage over his rivals.
He watched two giants of the managing sphere ply their trade - I said before, what is important is what you know, not where you learned it. Many, many players have observed great managers. Many players have travelled the world (like Guardiola did, as invictus so helpfully pointed out), not just watching but studying, from not just two, but countless different managers. What is important is evidence that you have actually learned something from all this observation. This is what we dont know about Giggs. But Van Gaal and SAF will have a better idea. And I can only assume, if he is ultimately given the job, they must have had long conversations about management with him and found his thoughts on the subject to be quite worthwhile. I can only speculate about that, I havent heard it, I havent seen any evidence of it. I heard SAF talking about Ole in those terms a long time ago, but not Giggs. LVG talked about Carrick in those terms too. We'll just have to wait and see.

So to reiterate and conclude, I dont think @McUnited was belittling those achievements, I think he was questioning their relevance in this context, which I think is fair enough because I do too.

I couldn't have put it better!

 

[itso 7]

I wish people would put to rest the notion that you can design a long term managerial stint. Fergie stayed here because after our transformation was complete (circa 91-92) he was successful enough and we were rich enough to fund his incredible hunger for success. We were in a way able to satisfy each other's needs and by the time he hit a rough patch (2003-06) he was pretty much unsackable and even that rough patch included a couple of 2nd place finishes, a solitary 3rd place finish, an FA Cup win and a runners up finish (so much for a rough patch). So in light of this I would like us to consider the ability to deliver success (trophies and attractive football) as paramount in the person specification. The ability and inclination to stick around is a useless point if the candidate can not meet the most important deliverables, imo.

 

[itso 7]

@Adebesi I know what you mean, and I was also of the opinion when Jose rejoined Chelsea that he was now ready to "settle down" after spending the youth of his managerial years going around playing the field, so to speak.

However - and this may be a little be knee-jerkish - in his second stint at Chelsea I dont think he has been all that convincing. Last year they won the league comfortably of course, and they had the best squad, but some of the football and tactics in the game games was utterly dour. This season, he has already had the fiasco with the medical team, and suddenly his side arent looking quite so all-conquering. He seems to be on the verge of one of the meltdowns that @Invictus just described in his post, where he becomes a bit petulant and childish. I am simply not sure if he has the personality to be able to stay at a club for an extended period without causing some sort of conflict that results in him leaving or being sacked.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that Abramovich may adopt the attitude that he was stupid to let Jose go the first time round, and is prepared to be patient with him this time and give him whatever he needs. We will see.


@Invictus - Klopp is definitely a character where I can see loyalty as being important to him, hence why I havent mentioned him amongst the others when talking about short-term track records. Ancelotti I think you describe perfectly as serene, and someone who is more likely to stay at a club for longer, if he is allowed to (ie not sacked). My biggest concerns with Klopp are that a) He doesnt have quite the same sort of track record of success as some of the others we have spoken about, and b) He is one where I would expect potentially quite a hefty transitional phase if he were to replace LVG.

As you say and we have spoken about already, a lot of it depends on when we replace LVG, and what sort of shape the team is in. I am already on record as saying that if we have a poor season this year, and LVG leaves/is sacked next summer, then Giggs should not be the one to take over - it would be too early, and there would be too much pressure for instant improvement and success. In this scenario, Klopp would probably be my pick for the reasons you identified, although I would regard it as quite a risky appointment and not be 100% confident of him succeeding here, to be honest - but much like Giggs, I would deem it a risk worth taking.

The squad of players we have now do not need to be transitioned out should we hire Klopp, Jose, Ancelloti or Giggs. The reason being that apart from Blind none of them are particularly schooled in the 'possession is the be all and end all' of football mantra that LVG preaches. This squad is a couple of players away from becoming one of the most complete squads around. So regardless of what happens we'd still need a top class inside forward, a central defender and a back up striker. So my point is we won't need a major transition should we hire Klopp.

 

[Tincanalley]

Roy Keane had amazing presence and personality and ability on the pitch. Didn't make him an instant success as a manager. On the other hand everyone knows of the successful managers who never kicked a ball in anger or who weren't too hot as players. Management is a totally different skill to playing, and there is something in the DNA of managers which inspires others; they can be as different as Tony Pulis and Brian Clough, but there is something in the eye, something in the stage presence (as well as other obvious strategic and tactical attributes)... In my humble opinion Ryan don't have it (Maybe Keane has too much of it!). When I look at him I see something hungry, scrawny, individualistic, slightly anxious, maybe inward-looking there. Maybe its the way he always was the best boy, the up-and-coming, the new Georgie Best or whatever. If I was the director of a newly promoted side he would not be my go-to man to get the side competing with the best. Having said all that, big respect to Giggsy. I wish him all the best in his career, and would be sincerely delighted to be proven wrong.

 

[Stack]

Roy Keane had amazing presence and personality and ability on the pitch. Didn't make him an instant success as a manager. On the other hand everyone knows of the successful managers who never kicked a ball in anger or who weren't too hot as players. Management is a totally different skill to playing, and there is something in the DNA of managers which inspires others; they can be as different as Tony Pulis and Brian Clough, but there is something in the eye, something in the stage presence (as well as other obvious strategic and tactical attributes)... In my humble opinion Ryan don't have it (Maybe Keane has too much of it!). When I look at him I see something hungry, scrawny, individualistic, slightly anxious, maybe inward-looking there. Maybe its the way he always was the best boy, the up-and-coming, the new Georgie Best or whatever. If I was the director of a newly promoted side he would not be my go-to man to get the side competing with the best. Having said all that, big respect to Giggsy. I wish him all the best in his career, and would be sincerely delighted to be proven wrong.

Lets get Morgan Freeman to manage the team

 

[Walrus]

The squad of players we have now do not need to be transitioned out should we hire Klopp, Jose, Ancelloti or Giggs. The reason being that apart from Blind none of them are particularly schooled in the 'possession is the be all and end all' of football mantra that LVG preaches. This squad is a couple of players away from becoming one of the most complete squads around. So regardless of what happens we'd still need a top class inside forward, a central defender and a back up striker. So my point is we won't need a major transition should we hire Klopp.

This is quite a simplistic view I feel - whether or not the current players are completely set into LVGs philosophy (which obviously they are not), it is reasonable to expect a new manager to want to make their mark on the team etc.

Regardless, when I talk of transition I am if anything referring more to the backroom staff, training methods, scouting and youth setups etc. Again, we are a club that entrusts everything to the manager, and that manager is given more or less a free reign over all of those aspects - it goes far beyond just the first XI. If we had a DoF type figure looking after the long term strategy then it would be a different story entirely.

 

[red_devil83]

That isnt really a merit is it?. Its more of a romantic ideal?

So being one of our greatest players isn't a merit? Working closely with 2 great managers isn't a merit? Commanding respect through your previous triumphs isn't a merit? Being steeped in the history of the club isn't a merit?

 

[7even]

Roy Keane had amazing presence and personality and ability on the pitch. Didn't make him an instant success as a manager. On the other hand everyone knows of the successful managers who never kicked a ball in anger or who weren't too hot as players. Management is a totally different skill to playing, and there is something in the DNA of managers which inspires others; they can be as different as Tony Pulis and Brian Clough, but there is something in the eye, something in the stage presence (as well as other obvious strategic and tactical attributes)... In my humble opinion Ryan don't have it (Maybe Keane has too much of it!). When I look at him I see something hungry, scrawny, individualistic, slightly anxious, maybe inward-looking there. Maybe its the way he always was the best boy, the up-and-coming, the new Georgie Best or whatever. If I was the director of a newly promoted side he would not be my go-to man to get the side competing with the best. Having said all that, big respect to Giggsy. I wish him all the best in his career, and would be sincerely delighted to be proven wrong.

A very good observation. I share these thoughts. Further more. His actions on personal level doesn't reflect a man with character, more a egoistic person who put himself above others at any costs.

Ryan Giggs is intelligent enough to keep a low profile and act diplomatic in his new role as a assistant manager but for me that shows that he's more of a political type then manager with own visions. I prefer if he stays as a number two, it's the role who best suits him.

 

[Stack]

So being one of our greatest players isn't a merit? Working closely with 2 great managers isn't a merit? Commanding respect through your previous triumphs isn't a merit? Being steeped in the history of the club isn't a merit?

Actually in cold hard terms no it isnt.
Being a great player doesnt mean you will be a good manager. The experience gained thoughout the playing career on the training pitch and in games does deserve merit. Being a Legend doesnt. George Best was a club Legend but I doubt anybody would have wanted him as our manager.
Respect is earned and even though there is a certain level of respect because of a playing career that can be quickly eroded if the coaching is poor. You are only as good as your previous results. Previous triumphs as a player dont mean much relative to being a manager. Being steeped in club history means very little. Fergie wasnt steeped in club history when he arrived.
You are using romantic ideals as your argument. Romantic ideals when making the choice blur the judgement. Many of us fell in behind Fergies decision to choose Moyes because of the romantic idea that Fergie would get it right first pop.

 

[Jazz]

Everytime I see this thread at the top of the pile my heart sinks. Irrespective of LVG doing well or not, Giggs should not be considered for this job. Our club is one of the biggest not only in football, but financially. It is a dereliction of duty by the directors if they appoint a complete novice for such an important role. In fact, it's madness. People can talk tradition and what not - the cold fact is that it's madness.

Giggs does not have the personality nor more importantly the experience for this job. Saying he's been at United and knows how it works is nonsense. The fact is he's never had to make decisions regarding anything that affects the club. Do you honestly see Giggs able to make tough decisions? Until you're in that role, you can never understand the pressure that comes with it. Moreover, he has no 'life experience' outside of being at United. How then can he be expected to manage people from different backgrounds and culture? What has he shown that makes us think he can change a person's mindset to what it needs to be to perform at our club? I could go on and on but a couple of good posters like 'JP Rouve' have all made pertinent observations which I agree with.

The people who care about Giggs should encourage him to go out and implement what he's learnt so far by taking the reins at a smaller club. In fact, he should learn a foreign language and go abroad to get his experience. Get away from the 'British way' and one dimensional thinking mates in G Nev and Scholes. We might not be enjoying LVG's tactics, but the fact remains that the game has moved on and we get slaughtered in Europe and on the international stage, therefore some of what LVG is trying to instill is relevant to us going forward. I fear with Giggs we'll be stuck with the 'old ways' forever because he hasn't got the mentality to implement change or the foresight needed to identify when change is needed. I don't want that for my club - we need to always be looking forward.

Lastly, Class of 92 should forget about doing things like Sir Alex. Desiring something and trying to pull it off are two different matters. Sir Alex is a one off - not many people in the world have his brilliance - and it cannot be replicated just because you wish it to be.

The best thing for Giggs is to go out and see if he even likes managing first and do a Simeone (if he can pull it off), then he can apply for the job at ManUtd. He has to earn it like every other manager.

 

[itso 7]

This is quite a simplistic view I feel - whether or not the current players are completely set into LVGs philosophy (which obviously they are not), it is reasonable to expect a new manager to want to make their mark on the team etc.

Regardless, when I talk of transition I am if anything referring more to the backroom staff, training methods, scouting and youth setups etc. Again, we are a club that entrusts everything to the manager, and that manager is given more or less a free reign over all of those aspects - it goes far beyond just the first XI. If we had a DoF type figure looking after the long term strategy then it would be a different story entirely.

Any manager will come in and change those and this happens at every other club with little to no impact either side. Are you suggesting that institutionally we are so weak such that we are unable to manage a change in leadership? If so then maybe it's time we modernise the structure so that whoever comes in does not have to come in and be the brains of the whole operation from the word go. It wouldn't be a bad is idea to try the DOF thing because the truth of the matter is we aren't finding/recreating another strong manager like Sir Alex and the circumstances do not allow for us to grant them the leeway we granted Sir Alex in his earlier days. Can you really see us or any other club giving a manager six trophyless years filled with indifferent results?

 

[Zarlak]

Just no.

 

[itso 7]

So being one of our greatest players isn't a merit? Working closely with 2 great managers isn't a merit? Commanding respect through your previous triumphs isn't a merit? Being steeped in the history of the club isn't a merit?

Sadly but rightfully no. An ability to win whilst playing the right way is so is a proven track record of winning things, managing big egoes, promoting youth and playing the transfer market skilfully. What you are stating are only applicable when we are looking for a replacement for Sir Bobby as ceremonial chairman. These are what some would call intangibles - added advantages when you already meet the initial criteria.

 

[Walrus]

Any manager will come in and change those and this happens at every other club with little to no impact either side. Are you suggesting that institutionally we are so weak such that we are unable to manage a change in leadership? If so then maybe it's time we modernise the structure so that whoever comes in does not have to come in and be the brains of the whole operation from the word go. It wouldn't be a bad is idea to try the DOF thing because the truth of the matter is we aren't finding/recreating another strong manager like Sir Alex and the circumstances do not allow for us to grant them the leeway we granted Sir Alex in his earlier days. Can you really see us or any other club giving a manager six trophyless years filled with indifferent results?

Well like you say, modernising our structure may be a good idea, however I don't see any signs of that happening, and with the current structure I do not feel that we are well equipped to deal with changing manager every few years.