Well, granted, but sadly the time for Romance is nearly up; arguably, that time was approaching its end once clubs recruited players from outside their town/city enviroments. We face massive challenges from the likes of City & Chelsea alone, with all their (unfair, unearned) advantages, so this means we're obliged to be clever and pragmatic - these rivals and others will very rarely make sentimental choices.
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
Well, granted, but sadly the time for Romance is nearly up; arguably, that time was approaching its end once clubs recruited players from outside their town/city enviroments. We face massive challenges from the likes of City & Chelsea alone, with all their (unfair, unearned) advantages, so this means we're obliged to be clever and pragmatic - these rivals and others will very rarely make sentimental choices.
Did you watch the class of 92? If you did through the years then it will obvious the values associated with those players and their basic ideas of how a United team should play.
how close was Fergie to being fired...if we are to believe all the stories.. just think where we would be today.
I'm just thinking about all our reactions to the Arsenal match.
I'm just thinking about all our reactions to the Arsenal match.
A couple of weeks doesn't count. He's unequivocally an assistant with 2-3 years experience. Hardly the credentials one might associate with being qualified for the world's biggest job.
What does that have to do with being qualified to manage United ? He has no managerial experience, and frankly, if he wasn't a club legend, would get laughed at if he expressed an interest in managing United.
RedFish said:
RedFish said:
All of this is potentially problematical.
The idea of how helpful the class of 92 would be suggests managing the club by committee. I'm not sure that will work.
Erm Fergie was appointed in the eighties
Agreed. If you listen to Neville/Scholes - admittedly Scholes is pretty shite at punditry and Neville not bad of course - but you notice one thing they have in common, they have one way that they think football should be played. Now I'm all for attacking football of course, but there are different methods that you can adapt to get this. The problem is, these guys don't want to adapt to any other way, they have no curiosity about any other types of playing style. They just advocate what they know.
Now it's their choice to be that way. The problem is that everything evolves in life and sport is no exception. You have to go with it and make sure you stay on top of things. It doesn't mean losing your identity, it just means that you make necessary additions as you go along so that you stay competitive. It's frightening to think we would have these guys bringing their one dimensional outlook to the club. It would surely set us back whilst they kept banging on about identity/tradition etc etc.
Another thing is, they give the impression that by following what Sir Alex did, that ensures success. They fail to recognise that if this were so simple, most Premier League managers would have done the same and had some of the success SAF enjoyed. Knowing how someone does something is one thing, implementing it to a high standard is quite another thing.
It reminds me of those WWI generals who were convinced that cavalry was a better option than tanks and machine guns.
I agree with your points. I would just say that the sentimental choice in this case may not necessarily be the wrong one. He could be the manager to lead and inspire a group of players who already know how to pass and shoot a football. His charisma lies with the way he played the game, that he was part of the success under Fergie, that he was the one that the other (players) looked up to. When people like that are around, people tend to listen, to engage. Having all the experience in the world counts for nothing if you can't win the heart's and minds of the players. I do think the desire to try this option could well prove to be irresistable.......
Didn't Milan appoint a couple of former players as their manager Inazghi and then someone else. Sure they were respected but as far as I'm aware, did a shite job. Having a winning mentality and knowing the club isn't enough.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love Ryan to be our manager, mate - at the very least, we'd surely like him to be given his chance. Whether that'd be successful, who knows?
And specifically the reason we left Liverpool and others in the shade was because our ideas then were far ahead of that era. We appointed a super manager, got behind him and funded his thirst for success with big money signings. The boot room philosophy was an insular system that will not survive in this era where clubs fight for a French teenager with a handful of senior appearances whilst competing against a billion pound squad. Even Ferguson in this climate would not survive six trophyless seasons.
Identity, it's not irrelevant. In a commercial or footballing sense. I'm not saying it's the most important factor, just that it's not something that should be dismissed out of hand.
We've gone from Giggs to having the whole bunch of the '92 class involved, you can't live in the past, they are the past.
I seem to remember us supporting a manager who completed root and branch reform of the club, ended the drinking culture and developed a ground breaking youth system. But that could be just me.
How exactly would appointing an outside manager based in his CV be an 'idea that is far ahead of others'?
True. Seedorf was the other one.
How many potential Fergies have Real Madrid jettisoned and where are Madrid right now? I don't want to sound ungrateful to the man but you have to accept that every decision has a potential positive or negative implication, we will never know how it would have turned out had Fergie been sacked nor will we ever know where we would be if we had told him to keep his opinions to himself when we sought his successor!
I dont remember reading anything like that at the time. About how LVG was forced with a gun to his head to take on Giggs as #2. It honestly seems like a bit of creative revisionism and rewriting history to suit your argument. My recollection was that LVG wanted to have a "native" assistant manager, a link between him and the players, someone with existing extensive knowledge of the club etc.
Calm down mate - I am simply saying that you are assuming a worst-case scenario with nothing really to back it up other than that it suits your agenda. You said that we shouldnt take things said to the press at face value, which is fine, but there is a big stretch between that and assuming that Giggs is utterly incompetent, that LVG was forced to take him on and babysit him etc...
I agree that Ancelotti is one of the good guys in the game and would be a good fit in many ways. However he would also most likely be wanting to bring in his own backroom staff, implementing his own system, philosophy etc. So we are looking at at least 1-2 years of transition, for a manager who has rarely lasted more than 3 at a club. This lack of longevity also raises question marks (though not so much as Mourinho) about his ability to integrate youth and oversee future transitions of the playing squad.
Does this mean he would be a bad appointment? Not necessarily, I am simply trying to show how every managerial candidate has their own strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with the appointment.
With regard to "club structure" - the sort of thing I am getting at here is that the way United have done things is to simply have a "football man" as manager, who is in charge of everything. Our CEO - Woodward - is not a football man, however he is very apt at securing sponsorship deals and taking care of business (excuse the pun).
The point I am making is that even at the circus of Real Madrid, they typically have a long term outlook set out by their president. Lets consider that until fairly recently, Madrid had failed to get past the last 16 in the CL for something like 8 years consecutively. I dont think it is any coincidence that their success more recently has coincided with the fact that Perez has now been at the helm for 6 years. They change manager whenever they feel like it, but the long term outlook and continuity comes from the president (or at least it has done recently).
Many clubs use a Director of Football, or someone in a similar role, who can oversee the long term evolution of the playing squad, whilst the manager takes care of the day to day running of the team, motivating the players, dealing with the press and trying to win as many games as possible.
United are one of the relatively few clubs now who operate at the complete other end of the scale, where the manager is empowered to a greater degree than at other clubs. Not only does this mean that managing and succeeding at United is a different proposition to many clubs, but it also means that unless we change our model entirely, we cant really afford to be replacing our manager every 3 years, because we will be stuck in a constant cycle of transition, without a long term plan. Obviously there is a lot more going on in reality than I have said here, but you get the drift. There may be times when a short term appointment is appropriate, such as cleaning up after Moyes, but this is clearly not our normal business model.
While on the subject, I really dont get why Moyes keeps being brought up, as the two cases are like night and day. I have used Moyes as an example myself of how having experience managing at a decent level (in the PL, no less) doesnt mean anything when it comes to managing United. I find it strange that the Giggs critics are all too happy to cite Moyes as some kind of forewarning of what it would be like under Giggs, while at the same time dismissing any comparisons to Pep...
Nope. But it has everything to do with being a winner. The boy Giggsy is a born winner, has his coaching badges, is the current assistant manager at United and has the endorsement of Fergie and LVG. Thats enough for me. Of course all of this is a moot point as without the endorsement of the Caf Woodward will never appoint him
Roy Keane was a club legend and born winner. He's a bit of a shite manager, though. Of course, Giggs could be great, but it's far from conclusive: being a good football player doesn't necessarily make you a good football manager.
Hey this is getting silly, the fact that we stood by Fergie whilst he rooted out the drinking culture, cleared out some fan favourites and tore down the youth system shows we were on the same page with what he was implementing - which were ideas that were ahead of that era and ten years later we were rewarded with the Co92. We were also a step ahead in commercialization of the brand. All this whilst Liverpool were stuck in the boot room system.
I have. I also saw the documentary on Giggs where it looked like he didn't have a fecking clue.
Not to mention that Fergie is partly remarkable because he was an anomaly in certain senses: very few managers get so long at a club, and then go on to be immensely successful afterwards. We can't appoint managers, and simply give them too much time without ideal basis, simply because it worked with one of the greatest managers of all-time.
@Walrus you are deluded if you think that any manager, Giggs included, will not be bringing his backroom staff. Van Gaal and Giggs are different men from different schools of thought and eras there is no way what worked for LvG will also work for Giggs seamlessly.
I agree with all that. All I'm asking is what is your big plan to get us a step ahead? And how is appointing Giggs anathema to that?
Where does the assumption that Giggs will bring in his own backroom come from? He has existing connections and relationships with the staff already at Old Trafford, who for the most part have been a highly successful bunch. If LVG is retiring after he finishes here, then it also means he isnt going to be taking "his" staff with him (unless some want to retire). Giggs - as has been mentioned in this thread - does not have experience as a manager, so who are his backroom staff that he is going to bring in? Presumably we are talking about the Class of '92 - and personally I cant see that happening, at least not instantly. Giggs isnt stupid, I just cant see why he would replace a bunch of experienced staff who he has already worked with, with inexperienced mates.
An anomaly is exactly what we are looking for, at a club like this. If Fergie and LVG see enough in Giggs to suggest he could be another 'anomaly' that's enough for me. And I think we all agree Giggs transitioning from great player to successful manager would be an anomaly. Bring it on I say.
You don't search an anomaly, you stumble on it. You have to take a rational decision in the first and that rational decision can turn out to be a lot more than you expected.
As usual the same old argument is resorted to. Being a good footballer doesn't necessarily make you a poor manager either. The same as having a CV doesn't guarantee success. Each individual should be assessed on their own individual merits. Giggs, in my view offers something few other candidates can offer. I don't care if other ex-legends 'failed' at other clubs. I'm interested in seeing Giggs trying to succeed at United.
And as of yet, Giggs has absolutely none whatsoever in a managerial sense. It doesn't make you a poor manager, either, but I never argued that. Your point was that his playing career is somehow relevant to his managerial ability. It's not.
And is there no 'rational' argument for appointing Giggs? My point about the anomaly is him being relatively unique in our history - that is if he becomes manager and succeeds.
My point was his longevity at the club and connection with our greatest era gives him something you can't import.
That's not relevant to managerial ability, though.
And it's also not necessarily true, since our two greatest managers who partly helped forge the identity of the club were from outside of it.
For the people around him there is probably a rational argument, but for us fans who know nothing about Giggs the coach, no there is no rational arguments
I'm not against the crazy idea of appointing him, but I'm definitely against all the weak arguments regarding his longevity at the club and his relationship with SAF.
think the argument for selecting a manager from within may stem from the Bayern model, where they have many former players in senior positions.
The reason why Giggs shouldn't be our next manager is that the competition is too strong in this league. Bayern, Real or Barca could take a chance like this, but not us, we need experience.
Would love to see him as our manager one day, but i agree with the others saying that he needs to prove himself elsewhere.
Would love to see him as our manager one day, but i agree with the others saying that he needs to prove himself elsewhere.
Are you open to being proved wrong? If Giggs is appointed and succeeds will you admit that he was a sensible appointment?
- Status