This is true. I think you do need to give any manager at least a few months before you can make judgements, but as you say some fans would likely turn on him the instant that we lose a game. I would say that if by Christmas time in his first season, we are really struggling, the performances are bad and there is no real "light at the end of the tunnel" then we would probably need to start considering our options though.
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
This is true. I think you do need to give any manager at least a few months before you can make judgements, but as you say some fans would likely turn on him the instant that we lose a game. I would say that if by Christmas time in his first season, we are really struggling, the performances are bad and there is no real "light at the end of the tunnel" then we would probably need to start considering our options though.
@Devil may care @Walrus The way I remember it you are both right to an extent.
Van Gaal always liked having a native as his number 2. In this case it wasnt a question of choosing that man, it was thrust upon him in the form of Giggs. He was even the one who flew to Amsterdam to dot the i's and cross the t's. I dont know if at other clubs he chose his man or if he took the person already effectively in place - i.e. what kind of a compromise this was. But it doesnt strike me as an unlikely scenario, that he was offered the job with certain conditions attached, one of them being that Giggs would be his number 2 (in the knowledge that Van Gaal would want someone with a history of the club in place anyway.)
Van Gaal always liked having a native as his number 2. In this case it wasnt a question of choosing that man, it was thrust upon him in the form of Giggs. He was even the one who flew to Amsterdam to dot the i's and cross the t's. I dont know if at other clubs he chose his man or if he took the person already effectively in place - i.e. what kind of a compromise this was. But it doesnt strike me as an unlikely scenario, that he was offered the job with certain conditions attached, one of them being that Giggs would be his number 2 (in the knowledge that Van Gaal would want someone with a history of the club in place anyway.)
Giggs was on Moyes staff for the same reason, I'm not revising anything, just going off what was written and what seems evident, the club want a cheap, marketable option in Giggs to take over.
No, you are trying to tell me what I am saying, I am saying appoint someone who has won a league title in one of the major leagues and had documented success in Europe, don't take risks on managers that have proven zilch whether they have managed for 10 years or not.
Except that there's no correlation between being a good player and being a good manager, in fact football is littered with examples of great players winding up horrible or at best, mediocre managers. From a strictly business perspective, it's rampantly irresponsible to appoint someone just because they played for us and we like them, when they don't have any experience managing a big club, especially when there are qualified managers available. Let Giggs go elsewhere and let's see how he fares at a smaller club before gifting him the biggest job in football. It hasn't worked particularly well for the likes of Ole and Keane, and there's little to suggest Giggs would be any different.
I'd be more worried about us proving to be too loyal to Giggs than turning on him too quickly. Given the esteem he's held in by the club it would take a pretty massive disaster for us to fire him I'd have thought. I'd be worried we'd see a situation similar to the one Liverpool went through with Souness, where they stuck with him way beyond the point it became clear that he wasn't really good enough. Plus, can you imagine how grim things would be if Manchester United sacked Ryan Giggs? Yikes.
Also, "the opinion that he would be a success is equally as valid as any that he won't, given, as you say, he hasn't managed before therefore there's no evidence either way" is wrong I think. The odds aren't 50/50 so how can the two opinions carry equal weight? Any individual person has very slim odds of being a manager good enough for a club as big as ours. No evidence either way = very likely to fail.
Also, "the opinion that he would be a success is equally as valid as any that he won't, given, as you say, he hasn't managed before therefore there's no evidence either way" is wrong I think. The odds aren't 50/50 so how can the two opinions carry equal weight? Any individual person has very slim odds of being a manager good enough for a club as big as ours. No evidence either way = very likely to fail.
If we are so bent on having a former player take over, let's go with Laurent Blanc. At least he's proven.
I wasn't implying Giggs is suitable just because he was a good player, I was saying he probably knows better than anyone else what made United successful and, just as importantly, the type of football the fans want United to play.
Let's be honest here, even the most experienced manager can walk into a job and be a total failure (Hodgson at Liverpool?) so I really don't see how being successful at a smaller club makes anyone qualified to manage Manchester United.
I don't believe he'd enjoy much support from the fans, even in comparison to candidates who have no connection to United. On a cynical note, one might be inclined to think that the Glazers deflect from their unpopularity by making popular appointments (and even signings/renewals); Blanc doesn't fit that profile.
He needs to leave OT and get experience elsewhere with clubs who are in a different situation to ours. His experience with United + SAF/LVG contacts will contribute greatly in him jumping 1-2 steps. Im sure that Giggs wouldn't need to become a part time manager or a translator just as SAF/Mourinho were.
Once he does well somewhere else, than bigger clubs will become interested in him and a in a couple of years he would have built the necessary CV to take the United role by right and not because he's SAF prodigal son. I am sure that if he is able to build a similar CV to that of Simeone, Klopp or even De Boer he would be considered for the top spot
He won't do that though. Depending on one's POV, it's either cowardice; understandable self-interest; or even a sense of loyalty to United which means he's got no interest in managing other clubs.
I can guarantee the glazers will not make a managerial appointment based on popularity.
I should've labelled it 'popularity/PR'.
This is getting silly now, people saying that the Glazers - businessmen who have shown that their overriding goal is making money - are going to make an appointment based on romanticism and PR. Someone said earlier that they would appoint Giggs because he is the "cheap and marketable" option... this is just ludicrous. Paying a couple of million less for a manager and then losing out on the CL/PL prize money does not make any business sense.
I don't even think they care about PR. Their entire business model depends on us doing well on the pitch. I can't comprehend how they will put it in the hands of someone with no managerial experience.
I'm not so sure that it's so silly or unthinkable - everything from Rooney's renewal to Mata's signing has an air of pleasing the fans (to the administration's way of thinking, at least) or a PR-driven attempt to show that "we've still got it". Even Moyes' appointment can be seen in PR-inspired terms: the supposed Romance, and the idea of traditional continuity.
I agree, and if we were being really fair about it we wouldnt appoint Giggs even if he went to a smaller club and did well. The usual trajectory would be for him to go somewhere small, do well, then get snapped up by someone bigger, then do well again, and then go somewhere big, do well before coming to United.
You could bypass a rung (maybe even two) of that ladder by being not just good but exceptional. That is, consistent giant killing and maintaining success well above the level usually associated with a given club. It means winning things.
Otherwise its a long process. It doesnt make much sense to start with the proviso that you want a particular candidate and then ask what experience is necessary. There is too much, the road is too long. That is why the usual way of doing it is to start on the other side, with the people who already have the requisite experience, and whittle down to one person, rather than saying this is what you need to do before you can be considered. If you look at it that way around the obstacles look insurmountable. That's because they almost are. Just as they are for almost all exceptional jobs at the top of their fields. You dont become CEO of a FTSE 100 company by being the assistant of a FTSE 100 CEO for a few years. You work your way up the long and hard way, or you do something extraordinary that marks you out as somethign special.
In the documentary where he was followed in management, his process for picking players was amateur hour with little reasoning behind it. His own statements about finding the job extremely stressful and not being able to sleep at night. The reports about him turning up to train like a player rather then as a manager (Nicky Butt I think it was who said that?) and his insistence on 'the United way' in his press conferences. He just gives off the same vibe as a lot of English pundits when he spoke in interviews and is also way too sheltered within the Ferguson bubble of football which only worked for Ferguson.
One would hope and imagine that he has learnt a lot since then, working closely with LVG for a few years.
He won't have I imagine. When you have doesn't years watching something and seeing it breed success, you are more then likely to stick to that then something that hasn't brought much in the way of success. Giggs along with a lot of other class if 92 players seem brainwashed by the idea of Fergusons way being the best way.
They appointed Moyes.
The one thing that convinced me we'd get someone like Mourinho/Pep after Ferguson was the belief that the Glazers are solely concerned with sucking money from the club.
Then they appoint a lightweight like Moyes.
I remember watching the documentary and thinking what a car crash it would have been if he was given the job full time.
How are they not comparable?!
I can't blame him. He's been a Manchester United employee for all his life and anything beyond that must be daunting. There's also so much talk around him specifically on how to give him the big prize by simply having him sit down as assistant manager and do nothing particularly stupid until LVG decides to retire. That's tempting. Having said that, is that the type of manager we want at OT? Someone whose happy to just play safe, work with the flow and don't risk anything in his life else it may end up bad?
Who knows? Seeing as he stayed with United all his playing career, I'm prepared to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this: perhaps his feeling for United is so strong that he hasn't any interest in managing elsewhere.
Probably, in this case, all potential applicants will be well known managers. So CV here is just a reference to their career so far. And herein lies my issue with Giggs: There is literally nothing on his CV that qualifies him for the post; he would only get a look in because he is a club legend. Most of whatever intimate knowledge those who work closely with him may have that we on the outside do not have cannot be direct testimony to his managerial ability; so even they would be extrapolating what they know about him into how he would be as a manager.
They appointed Moyes because the goose that used to lay golden eggs told them so. They know absolutely nothing about football so you cant blame them for listen to SAF. I hope they wont do the same mistake twice. The man is a genius but he allowed his emotions to take over his better judgement just as Busby did. We all know how that ended
I don't see 4 years as assistant manager is much less than 1 year as reserve B team manager in lower league.
Well if that's the case than on paper he should be grateful to be just an assistant manager and he should acknowledge that without any prior experience in management he's got no chance of moving up the career ladder at United. However by the looks of it, its not the case. The man seems to want all the cake and eat it.
If Ryan Giggs can produce the same amount of talent Guardiola was key in producing at Barcelona than maybe he should give him the nod. However by the time of writing we're developing Blacketts, Mcnairs and Tunnicliffes not Messis, Iniestas and Puyols. May I also remind you that the appointment of Guardiola was more of a forced move as he was not Barcelona's no 1 choice.
Also why keep mentioning Guardiola? The man lead the strongest team in the world to glory and then he moved to its only competitor and did the same. Do you think that Giggs will have such luxury? Where are the Mullers, the Messis, the Iniestas and the Albas in our team? Also do you think we have the right mentality to sack Giggs after 6 months at the very first hint of him being out of depth? That's how clubs who rely on homegrown managers do when things do not work out for them (Seedorf, Inzaghi, Leonardo etc).
Last edited:
Sorry if this sounds like a question from nowhere but does anyone know what Giggs contributes to the current setup? Is there any reports of what Van Gaal (or any other staff members) have been impressed with?
Literally all I know about Giggs is that he sits on the bench and chats to the players at the side now and again during matches.
Surely we would have heard something more about what exactly he brings to the table and why he has an influence behind the scenes?
I'm thinking along the lines of Queiroz being given credit for our change in strategy in European games etc.
Literally all I know about Giggs is that he sits on the bench and chats to the players at the side now and again during matches.
Surely we would have heard something more about what exactly he brings to the table and why he has an influence behind the scenes?
I'm thinking along the lines of Queiroz being given credit for our change in strategy in European games etc.
I don't think that's the case at all. He always willing to take some risk inside and "outside" the pitch.
Yeah he knows how to attack the space, whether that be in the opponents penalty box or in his sister-in-law's box. You can hate on him for it but the guy gets what he wants. Just like United should. And people should hate us for it, like they used to.
What I heard is Barca has long been considering to appoint Guardiola even before his B team venture.
I want it because its both. It challenges conventional wisdom and the romantic aspect of Giggs being our manager is hugely appealing.
If my point about the CV approach is nonsense then explain Sexton, Docherty, O'Farrell, Atkinson and Moyes. All of those passed the CV test at the time of their appointments. None of them delivered the league. Giggs is an unconventional choice. Good!
So just say that, you don't need to rationalize it.
This is true.
I would find it more appealing if Giggs were an established/successful manager elsewhere and was returning to United. In the absence of qualifications, I'm afraid we are mortgaging our future success on the romance of the past.
The fans can be romantic about it and that's fine. I support United because I lived nearby when I was 5 years old and my favourite colour was red. There's no logic behind my love for a football team and I continue to watch every match, chat with my mates, read the stupid gossip columns and talk rubbish on forums because I love the highs and lows that supporting a sports team brings. To me Giggs is an exciting extension to the narrative.
Ed Woodward, I expect, will be more pragmatic. He will definitely have learned from the Moyes debacle.
It's quite feasible (likely even) that we'll see this happen within the next few years:
Chelsea - Mourinho
Arsenal - Wenger
City - Guardiola
Liverpool - Klopp
United - Giggs
Is there anyone who genuinely thinks this is going to work out well for us? Honestly, even with Van Gaal come off worst there. The issue of course, is that these are the clubs vying for top 4 most of the time, we might even see that become top 3. Doesn't fill me with confidence about our chances of Europe for a few years.
Chelsea - Mourinho
Arsenal - Wenger
City - Guardiola
Liverpool - Klopp
United - Giggs
Is there anyone who genuinely thinks this is going to work out well for us? Honestly, even with Van Gaal come off worst there. The issue of course, is that these are the clubs vying for top 4 most of the time, we might even see that become top 3. Doesn't fill me with confidence about our chances of Europe for a few years.
- Status