The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[CassiusClaymore]

I'd give him a go. Why not? Worth the gamble just to see Giggs in charge.

We've already seen it.

 

[Revan]

That's bullshit. Few years before Fergie retired, there was a rumor that Moyes could be our next manager. Everyone here on Caf thought that was absolutely a terrible idea.

There weren't many ( in fact there were many, including myself) aiming their pitchfork at Moyes on the day he was announced as United manager because we rather wishing him the best of luck, he was one of us after all.

To be fair, in a poll here (before SAF retired) he got 12% of votes. It was a quite large poll, with hundreds of votes there, and a mediocre manager like Moyes getting 12% of the votes was insane.

Even then, there were many people who were finding a lot of reasons why Moyes is a good choice and were trying to convince everyone else that because Fergie said so, because he's British, bllah bllah bllah. Very similar to this thread.

 

[itso 7]

This is the attitude that is frustrating in this thread. That the anti-Giggs crowd constantly want to state with 100% certainty that it cannot work, that there is no logic or merit to the appointment, that it is only about romanticism etc.

There has been enough discussion in this thread, and enough hints given by LVG/the club, that even if you dont agree with it, you should at least be able to see that there is a logical argument in favour of Giggs.

The fact of the matter is that you guys are overplaying his merits and we are cautious regarding the potential damage failure could have on the club's and Giggs' future prospects. On this I prefer to err on the side of caution and get in someone like Ancelloti that would guarantee trophies and we do need those trophies to reassert ourselves as a true football giant. The state we are in is not exactly the right one to be taking what is, for all intents and purposes, a massive risk. Do you dispute that this is a risky appointment? Do you deny that Mourinho, Ancelloti or Gaurdiola are serial trophy winners and would do so at United if given the chance?
The root of your disagreement in this is that you fear that if Giggs is made to prove himself he will fail but did Fergie, Mourinho, Ancelloti et al fail at smaller assignments early on in their career? When you have it you have it and it will show everywhere you go. Rather ruling out Ryan we are simply asking him to show he's got it elsewhere before we can trust him with the most important job in the club.

 

[Shamwow]

The fact of the matter is that you guys are overplaying his merits and we are cautious regarding the potential damage failure could have on the club's and Giggs' future prospects. On this I prefer to err on the side of caution and get in someone like Ancelloti that would guarantee trophies and we do need those trophies to reassert ourselves as a true football giant. The state we are in is not exactly the right one to be taking what is, for all intents and purposes, a massive risk. Do you dispute that this is a risky appointment? Do you deny that Mourinho, Ancelloti or Gaurdiola are serial trophy winners and would do so at United if given the chance?
The root of your disagreement in this is that you fear that if Giggs is made to prove himself he will fail but did Fergie, Mourinho, Ancelloti et al fail at smaller assignments early on in their career? When you have it you have it and it will show everywhere you go. Rather ruling out Ryan we are simply asking him to show he's got it elsewhere before we can trust him with the most important job in the club.

Is it just me who doesn't want to say or hear stuff like this? Are we discussing the beautiful game or some sort of stock investment?

 

[itso 7]

Is it just me who doesn't want to say or hear stuff like this? Are we discussing the beautiful game or some sort of stock investment?

Those two are intrinsicly linked aren't they, deep pockets guarantee sustained domination on the pitch and winning on the pitch brings financial growth. That's the reality of the game and it is what it is and we can not reinvent the rules of the game in the fourth quarter, sadly.

 

[Shamwow]

Those two are intrinsicly linked aren't they, deep pockets guarantee sustained domination on the pitch and winning on the pitch brings financial growth. That's the reality of the game and it is what it is and we can not reinvent the rules of the game in the fourth quarter, sadly.

Ugh

 

[afrocentricity]

The root of your disagreement in this is that you fear that if Giggs is made to prove himself he will fail but did Fergie, Mourinho, Ancelloti et al fail at smaller assignments early on in their career?

Why do you think this? I don't believe that poster or anyone else had said or even alluded to that. You think that a poster that had doubts whether Giggs can handle proving himself for a job, thinks that he should just take the job anyway?

Is it just me who doesn't want to say or hear stuff like this? Are we discussing the beautiful game or some sort of stock investment?

Yea it's all a bit football manager, but it's nothing new on the caf...

That's bullshit. Few years before Fergie retired, there'd been a rumor that Moyes could be our next manager. Everyone here on Caf thought that was absolutely a terrible idea.

There weren't many ( in fact there were many, including myself) aiming their pitchfork at Moyes on the day he was announced as United manager because we rather wishing him the best of luck, he was one of us after all.

What are you saying? There weren't many? There were? It's not bullshit, the threads are here for you to browse if you like.

 

[Shamwow]

Those two are intrinsicly linked aren't they, deep pockets guarantee sustained domination on the pitch and winning on the pitch brings financial growth. That's the reality of the game and it is what it is and we can not reinvent the rules of the game in the fourth quarter, sadly.

Ugh

 

[Walrus]

The fact of the matter is that you guys are overplaying his merits and we are cautious regarding the potential damage failure could have on the club's and Giggs' future prospects. On this I prefer to err on the side of caution and get in someone like Ancelloti that would guarantee trophies and we do need those trophies to reassert ourselves as a true football giant. The state we are in is not exactly the right one to be taking what is, for all intents and purposes, a massive risk. Do you dispute that this is a risky appointment? Do you deny that Mourinho, Ancelloti or Gaurdiola are serial trophy winners and would do so at United if given the chance?
The root of your disagreement in this is that you fear that if Giggs is made to prove himself he will fail but did Fergie, Mourinho, Ancelloti et al fail at smaller assignments early on in their career? When you have it you have it and it will show everywhere you go. Rather ruling out Ryan we are simply asking him to show he's got it elsewhere before we can trust him with the most important job in the club.

I have always stated it is a gamble - but so is any other appointment in my view. In my mind when it comes to risk:reward, Giggs offers a vastly higher reward for only a slightly higher risk, for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

Regarding the post of mine that you quoted - I have no objection to discussing this, hence why I made the thread. What frustrates me is people who ignore everything that has been said over nearly 40 pages (this isnt to say I expect someone to wade through 1500 posts, mind you) and just state "It will end in failure. There are no reasons for appointing Giggs other than sentimental ones." etc. It is impossible to try to have a discussion with someone like @Revan who simply refuses to entertain any other argument or opinion.

My view is that if Giggs is going to be Manchester United manager, then it will be (and should be) after LVG. It appears from the outside that all the pieces are being put in place for him to be a success. One of the reasons I am optimistic about Giggs is his existing connections/relationships with the staff, coaching team, players etc. If he goes out somewhere else for 5-10 years, then these connections are effectively lost. In short, I think that in terms of Giggs' suitability to manage United, sending him out to manage some mid table team will do him more harm than good, and we have already seen that having that experience at another club is no guarantee of success at United anyway. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy the fans that he isnt completely incompetent as a manager - something which those inside the club would surely already have established if they go ahead and appoint him.

 

[Lynty]

We've already seen it.

Moyes???

Moyes had an extended record of mediocrity, which he continued at old trafford, yet some people were still surprised he wasn't able to step up a level. Giggs starts from a clean slate. The gamble is completely different.

 

[itso 7]

Why do you think this? I don't believe that poster or anyone else had said or even alluded to that. You think that a poster that had doubts whether Giggs can handle proving himself for a job, thinks that he should just take the job anyway?


Yea it's all a bit football manager, but it's nothing new on the caf...


What are you saying? There weren't many? There were? It's not bullshit, the threads are here for you to browse if you like.

You weren't there at the start of this argument so apologies if some of the stuff raised look like implied bollocks. A few posters demanded that he show his abilities at a lower tier club only for others to say succes at mid tier club is meaningless citing Moyes' failure as indisputable evidence that mid table club is meaningless and managers can not work their way up as if Klopp, Ferguson and Mourinho suddenly landed at CL clubs.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

As businessmen, who have little interest in Soccer - the Glazers will make clinical decisions, like accountants.

I'm sure they will - and I have no issue with that, as such.

But I - me, personally - don't have to embrace this accountant's point of view fully. I'm not an accountant - I'm a football fan. It's a fairly harmless and fairly pointless pursuit at the end of the day. I don't have to take either money or set footballing goals into consideration - I don't own or run the club, I just follow it for whatever reason.

My impression is that more and more fans these days think like you suggest the Glazers do - clinically. And they seem to think this is...I don't know...necessary? Because it would be a disaster of huge proportions if United were to hire the wrong man and spend some years in the - very relative, I suspect - wilderness.

What gives you more pleasure as a fan? The idea of United doing something "romantic" - which involves an obvious risk? Or United doing something perfectly logical - which involves minimum risk in a football context? Winning points and trophies - regardless of how it's done? Or adhering to YOUR idea of what the club represents or should represent?

You can criticize the club for being "romantic" - I have no issue with that. That's a reasonable criticism. But you can't, in my opinion, criticize fellow fans for being so. It's not reasonable - and it even betrays a lack of understanding of what it means to be a football fan, or at least a very narrow concept of the latter.

And by "you" I don't mean you personally, of course - it's just something I see everywhere these days, this accountant style approach to being a football fan.

 

[devilish]

I have always stated it is a gamble - but so is any other appointment in my view. In my mind when it comes to risk:reward, Giggs offers a vastly higher reward for only a slightly higher risk, for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

Regarding the post of mine that you quoted - I have no objection to discussing this, hence why I made the thread. What frustrates me is people who ignore everything that has been said over nearly 40 pages (this isnt to say I expect someone to wade through 1500 posts, mind you) and just state "It will end in failure. There are no reasons for appointing Giggs other than sentimental ones." etc. It is impossible to try to have a discussion with someone like @Revan who simply refuses to entertain any other argument or opinion.

My view is that if Giggs is going to be Manchester United manager, then it will be (and should be) after LVG. It appears from the outside that all the pieces are being put in place for him to be a success. One of the reasons I am optimistic about Giggs is his existing connections/relationships with the staff, coaching team, players etc. If he goes out somewhere else for 5-10 years, then these connections are effectively lost. In short, I think that in terms of Giggs' suitability to manage United, sending him out to manage some mid table team will do him more harm than good, and we have already seen that having that experience at another club is no guarantee of success at United anyway. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy the fans that he isnt completely incompetent as a manager - something which those inside the club would surely already have established if they go ahead and appoint him.

In few words him getting more experience as a a manager would do him more harm than good? That's weird.

 

[Walrus]

In few words him getting more experience as a a manager would do him more harm than good? That's weird

Based on the fact that he will lose his connections/relationships with those inside the club, and the circumstance/environment is unlikely to be set up for him in the way it appears to be now (LVG laying the foundations, grooming him for the role etc).

Similarly, if we assume that those inside the club know Giggs far better than we do as fans, and they apparently think he is to be LVGs successor - what does he prove by going out and managing another team? Again, those inside the club already likely have a good idea of his strengths, weaknesses and suitability for the role.

For me, it is now (after LVG) or never.

 

[Riz]

If you look at the history of the game, being a top player for the club hasn't been that much correlated with being a top manager in that club.

Sir Alex wasn't a United player, Sir Matt was a City ex-player and a Liverpool legend, Bill Shankly played for Preston, Mourinho didn't play at all, same about Sacchi, Herrera played for a bunch of clubs, neither of them being in Italy, Ancelotti was a Roma legend and while he played for Milano, he started managing them only after he gained experience in Reggiana, Parma and Juventus etc etc. Neither of these great football managers knew the club inside out or played for that club (bar Ancelotti).

However there are occurrances when a manager was a great player at that club. Cruyff and Guardiola are the best examples of that, but both were in unique scenarios. Cruyff as one of the most intelligent players of all time was way ahead of his time. If 'student of the game' means anything, then I doubt that there are many people who can claim to be it more than Guardiola. And finally, there is Bob Paisley with whom Giggs can have the most similarities. Like Giggs, Paisley was a legend of his club. Like Giggs, Bob Paisley was a part of the coaching staff at his team. Unlike Giggs, Paisley spent 20 years in those positions starting from a self taught physio, to a coach on the reserve team, to a coach in the main team, to assistant manager, to the man who was responsible for tactics during Shankly era and finally he became the manager. He didn't get the job cause he was a great player, he took the job cause he was a great manager.

Now if we can agree that being a top manager doesn't require knowing the club inside out, or even being a top player in first place (Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Best, Charlton, Platini, Eusebio, Garrincha are all top 10 players and whichever of them tried to do a job at management was shown to be an utter failure) then Giggs being a top player and a United legend becomes irrelevant in his likelihood of being a top manager.

Bow if we can talk about Giggs being a fantastic coach, a student of the game, having a wonderful knowledge of tactics (something that every top manager had), then there would be an interesting debate on that. But the closest we have seen Giggs talking for tactics is this:



And here you can see Giggs' charisma:



Now, compare it with Pep Guardiola:

Well for starters I didn't mention anything about Giggs being a top player, let alone that contributing to how well he would succeed as a manager, not sure why your arguing that as we're in agreement there's little to no correlation...

However there aren't very many examples of players with the insight and experiences of Giggs and Guardiola at massive clubs going onto manage those clubs respectively so early in their managerial career. My point wasn't about comparing the 2 directly at all, my point was that in terms of grooming Giggs for command then one aspect of his tutelage that hasn't been covered is the step up from player to manager (especially at such a massive club). The only person around who's experienced a similar situation was Guardiola, of course they're completely different human beings I never said Giggs was as charismatic or a studious as Pep. But it's a valuable lesson that Giggs could do with hearing about directly from someone who's done it.

I don't want Giggs to be manager of United as his first job in the hot seat, but if it does have to happen I'd much rather he spend some time as no.2 to a man who's trod a similar path.

 

[devilish]

Based on the fact that he will lose his connections/relationships with those inside the club, and the circumstance/environment is unlikely to be set up for him in the way it appears to be now (LVG laying the foundations, grooming him for the role etc).

Similarly, if we assume that those inside the club know Giggs far better than we do as fans, and they apparently think he is to be LVGs successor - what does he prove by going out and managing another team? Again, those inside the club already likely have a good idea of his strengths, weaknesses and suitability for the role.

For me, it is now (after LVG) or never.

a- Regarding the so called connections with coaches, well, if those same coaches believe in Giggs and Giggs believe in them than he will take them wherever he moves to. That what coaches usually do. They follow their manager.

b- Regarding the players, if they are good enough than the new manager will keep them. Most of the top managers had no 'connection' to the players they managed prior to their appointment (think of Mourinho, Ancelotti etc) and yet they still won the trophies. A manager is a manager not to be the player's best mate. Keegan was the player's best mate with England and we all know the result of that.

I often wonder why the Giggs royalists don't want him to prove himself before claiming the top spot? Maybe its because deep down they know he wont be able to do that and would end up taking the same path of the other people SAF's believed to be potential United's level (Mclaren, Robson, ONeill etc)

 

[Invictus]

I have always stated it is a gamble - but so is any other appointment in my view. In my mind when it comes to risk:reward, Giggs offers a vastly higher reward for only a slightly higher risk, for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

I keep hearing about these gargantuan rewards repeatedly mate, things are are supposed to leverage his set of risk, but what exactly are they? Hypothetically, let's say that instead of Ryan Giggs, the club decides to appoint Carlo Ancelotti. Now, Carlo is not an ex-United legend, he was kind of a legend for Roma and Milan, though that's another issue. Now suppose, we are really successful under Ancelotti, will the taste of success really feel bittersweet under him, will the supporters wish we had an insider instead? Did it do so under Fergie, who had no prior allegiances to United, unlike Giggs?

Speaking to longevity, another reward according to those arguing in Giggs' favor, again, let's stop chasing pies in the sky, and be more realistic. We thought David Moyes would be in it for the long haul, and I doubt Fergie was supposed to be our longest tenured manager when he was appointed. Longevity is a consequence of success, and stability, not the other way around. If someone like a Carlo Ancelotti is successful with United, are there major doubts over his commitment to the cause? Because, as stated before, he was either let go, or switched to clubs of a higher stature with each appointment.

From clubs at or around United's level on a historical basis, he will not return to Madrid, he will not be appointed at Barcelona, would he really choose Bayern over United, and risk what he's built? He's also managed Milan and Juventus, and repeatedly stated that he preferred the Premier League to the Serie A. He's still just 56 years old, so if he's successful, you could just as well plan the long term future with him.

What are the vastly higher rewards that Giggs offers? Background information of the club? Is that such a big deal in itself? Good managers can pick that up in no time. Giving youth a chance? Despite the popular narrative, Ancelotti can and does give chances to promising young players. Kaka, Pato, Rabiot, Verratti, Isco, and so forth. He just prefers an experience, which isn't exactly a bad way to go about things, especially in the Champions League.

 

[afrocentricity]

Devilish you just said the same thing I pulled the other poster up on.... Do you really think that's the reason? Even tho the post you quote says otherwise, in detail? Someone mentioned lack of understanding, spot on imo...

 

[Xaviesta]

Is it really that big a deal if Giggs never manages United anyway?

 

[Nighteyes]

I'm not necessarily hoping that Giggs becomes manager but isn't the the idea of him becoming manager a very exciting one to us fans at least? I'm quite amazed at the number of dour robotic cnuts that seem to inhabit this thread.

 

[afrocentricity]

Is it really that big a deal if Giggs never manages United anyway?

Missed opportunity....

 

[devilish]

Devilish you just said the same thing I pulled the other poster up on.... Do you really think that's the reason? Even tho the post you quote says otherwise, in detail? Someone mentioned lack of understanding, spot on imo...

Well I find the 'connection' thing to be BS TBH.

a- If the coaches truly believe in Giggs (and viceversa) they will follow him wherever he goes. Some of LVG's staff had followed him across half Europe. So this so called connection with coaches will never truly be lost

b- If LVG leaves a talented squad than most of it will survive the next manager. No one sells good players out of Lulz.

c- If the connection with players is so important than the likes of Mourinho and Ancelotti who keep hopping from one club to another would never win in the first place. Football has changed since the 70s. Most players see clubs as mere stepping stones to greener pastures and so do managers. Professional players will give their 100% irrespective whose the manager is and the manager would be wise enough to respect them since he need them on his side to win.

 

[Shamwow]

Well I find the 'connection' thing to be BS TBH.

a- If the coaches truly believe in Giggs (and viceversa) they will follow him wherever he goes. Some of LVG's staff had followed him across half Europe. So this so called connection with coaches will never truly be lost

b- If LVG leaves a talented squad than most of it will survive the next manager. No one sells good players out of Lulz.

c- If the connection with players is so important than the likes of Mourinho and Ancelotti who keep hopping from one club to another would never win in the first place. Football has changed since the 70s. Most players see clubs as mere stepping stones to greener pastures and so do managers.

Promotion from within has it's own set of advantages and risks but you can't call it bullshit.

 

[JPRouve]

Is it really that big a deal if Giggs never manages United anyway?

No it wouldn't be a big deal, he is my favorite player and it would amazing if he successfully managed the club but I would like it a lot if it was Butt too.

 

[Cheesy]

Is it really that big a deal if Giggs never manages United anyway?

Nah, not really. Would be great if he did and was a success, but you could say the same for Scholes, Neville and a vast array of other United legends. I don't really buy this idea that Giggs doing well here would be all that much greater than anyone else doing well as manager.

 

[Xaviesta]

I keep hearing about these gargantuan rewards repeatedly mate, things are are supposed to leverage his set of risk, but what exactly are they? Hypothetically, let's say that instead of Ryan Giggs, the club decides to appoint Carlo Ancelotti. Now, Carlo is not an ex-United legend, he was kind of a legend for Roma and Milan, though that's another issue. Now suppose, we are really successful under Ancelotti, will the taste of success really feel bittersweet under him, will the supporters wish we had an insider instead? Did it do so under Fergie, who had no prior allegiances to United, unlike Giggs?

Speaking to longevity, another reward according to those arguing in Giggs' favor, again, let's stop chasing pies in the sky, and be more realistic. We thought David Moyes would be in it for the long haul, and I doubt Fergie was supposed to be our longest tenured manager when he was appointed. Longevity is a consequence of success, and stability, not the other way around. If someone like a Carlo Ancelotti is successful with United, are there major doubts over his commitment to the cause? Because, as stated before, he was either let go, or switched to clubs of a higher stature with each appointment.

From clubs at or around United's level on a historical basis, he will not return to Madrid, he will not be appointed at Barcelona, would he really choose Bayern over United, and risk what he's built? He's also managed Milan and Juventus, and repeatedly stated that he preferred the Premier League to the Serie A. He's still just 56 years old, so if he's successful, you could just as well plan the long term future with him.

What are the vastly higher rewards that Giggs offers? Background information of the club? Is that such a big deal in itself? Good managers can pick that up in no time. Giving youth a chance? Despite the popular narrative, Ancelotti can and does give chances to promising young players. Kaka, Pato, Rabiot, Verratti, Isco, and so forth. He just prefers an experience, which isn't exactly a bad way to go about things, especially in the Champions League.

Brilliantly put. Hard to argue with any of that. Different sport and different circumstances perhaps but, i couldn't stand Wallabies coach Michael Cheika for three years. Now, if in early November he and the Wallabies return to Australia with the Rugby World Cup, i'll regard Michael Cheika as one the greatest blokes in the world. It certainly wouldn't diminish the success or make it bittersweet.

 

[afrocentricity]

Well I find the 'connection' thing to be BS TBH.


a- If the coaches truly believe in Giggs (and viceversa) they will follow him wherever he goes. Some of LVG's staff had followed him across half Europe. So this so called connection with coaches will never truly be lost...

Also talk of coaches following Giggs on his quest to appease the fans is laughable, he'll need top staff around him when he takes the United job, the type that won't be following him to fecking Sunderland just to help him prove his worth to RedCafe...

 

[devilish]

Promotion from within has it's own set of advantages and risks but you can't call it bullshit.

Promotion from within does have its advantages however such advantages do not apply to us.

A- a homegrown manager tend to ask for less money than a fully tested one with years of experience and trophies at his back.
B- He tends to be easier to control. Take Inzaghi as an example. Some of the shit he had to endure by Berlusconi would drive a common manager to knock him down and leave. However Inzaghi accepted them with a smile.
c- Because of A, its easier to fire if things get wrong. Moyes costed us 10m to have him out of the club. I am sure Giggs will accept less conditions for this 'one in a lifetime' chance

 

[Cheesy]

I keep hearing about these gargantuan rewards repeatedly mate, things are are supposed to leverage his set of risk, but what exactly are they? Hypothetically, let's say that instead of Ryan Giggs, the club decides to appoint Carlo Ancelotti. Now, Carlo is not an ex-United legend, he was kind of a legend for Roma and Milan, though that's another issue. Now suppose, we are really successful under Ancelotti, will the taste of success really feel bittersweet under him, will the supporters wish we had an insider instead? Did it do so under Fergie, who had no prior allegiances to United, unlike Giggs?

Speaking to longevity, another reward according to those arguing in Giggs' favor, again, let's stop chasing pies in the sky, and be more realistic. We thought David Moyes would be in it for the long haul, and I doubt Fergie was supposed to be our longest tenured manager when he was appointed. Longevity is a consequence of success, and stability, not the other way around. If someone like a Carlo Ancelotti is successful with United, are there major doubts over his commitment to the cause? Because, as stated before, he was either let go, or switched to clubs of a higher stature with each appointment.

From clubs at or around United's level on a historical basis, he will not return to Madrid, he will not be appointed at Barcelona, would he really choose Bayern over United, and risk what he's built? He's also managed Milan and Juventus, and repeatedly stated that he preferred the Premier League to the Serie A. He's still just 56 years old, so if he's successful, you could just as well plan the long term future with him.

What are the vastly higher rewards that Giggs offers? Background information of the club? Is that such a big deal in itself? Good managers can pick that up in no time. Giving youth a chance? Despite the popular narrative, Ancelotti can and does give chances to promising young players. Kaka, Pato, Rabiot, Verratti, Isco, and so forth. He just prefers an experience, which isn't exactly a bad way to go about things, especially in the Champions League.

Spot on. The idea of Giggs being a long-term manager is entirely based off of the idea that he'll be a success, which we don't know. I remember people arguing for Moyes ahead of Mourinho based entirely on this, yet now, even if Mourinho had only stayed for two years, he'd still be able to lay claim to having a longer tenure than Moyes.

That's not even remembering that Giggs being successful doesn't mean he would stay. Guardiola was promoted from within Barcelona, and had a rich history with the club. He was immensely successful, but decided he'd had enough after four years. What's to say Giggs wouldn't do the same? He could have a few incredibly successful years, but then decide he wants a new challenge abroad, or that the constant pressures of management aren't for him. We seem to assume that Giggs will make a great long-term manager because he was a great long-term player. Even if he is an excellent manager, there's no guarantee he'll stay for the long haul.

 

[Raoul]

It's remarkable how some are happy to suspend logic and strategy for romance and identity. What they are actually saying is "I don't care whether we are successful, as long as I achieve a level of comfort with the mediocrity we achieve".

 

[devilish]

Also talk of coaches following Giggs on his quest to appease the fans is laughable, he'll need top staff around him when he takes the United job, the type that won't be following him to fecking Sunderland to help him prove his worth to RedCafe...

Well some of LVG's men followed him at AZ. Capello's men followed him in Russia. This is a niche market were managers tend to work with their people only. These people will be unemployed with no guarantee of finding an immediate job (ex Phelan needed a year to find a job despite his record). Sunderland wouldn't be such a bad idea at all.

And part of a manager's role will be to find the right coaches to work for him whenever he loses his own people. If Giggs cant do that, then maybe he's not good for the United's job in the first place

 

[Shamwow]

Promotion from within does have its advantages however such advantages do not apply to us.

A- a homegrown manager tend to ask for less money than a fully tested one with years of experience and trophies at his back.
B- He tends to be easier to control. Take Inzaghi as an example. Some of the shit he had to endure by Berlusconi would drive a common manager to knock him down and leave. However Inzaghi accepted them with a smile.
c- Because of A, its easier to fire if things get wrong. Moyes costed us 10m to have him out of the club. I am sure Giggs will accept less conditions for this 'one in a lifetime' chance

They aren't the only advantages, I'm not just gonna repeat what walrus has already said though.

 

[Revan]

I have always stated it is a gamble - but so is any other appointment in my view. In my mind when it comes to risk:reward, Giggs offers a vastly higher reward for only a slightly higher risk, for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

And that is where we disagree.

Higher rewards from Giggs: what exactly? Would we celebrate and enjoy more an UCL if we win it with Giggs in charge instead of Pep or someone else? Or to make an analogy, would we have celebrated more the victories in 1999 and 2008 if our manager was Sir Bobby Charlton instead of Sir Alex Ferguson?

Longevity: do we know for sure that Giggs will stay here forever? I mean it is more likely that he'll stay here for a long time (assuming that he's succesful) than some other manager, but still we're not sure (or even close) that is the case. Pep left Barca and he was a legend both as a player and as manager there. Beckenbauer left Bayern, Cruyff left Ajax, Dalglish left Liverpool.

Talking about longevity, are we really sure that longevity is actually a good thing? I made a bit post about it a couple of hours ago, but there is absolutely no correlation between longevity of a manager and the success of the club. Barca changes managers every few years and they have won in last decade mroe than we have won in the last 40 years. Madrid is the most succesful club of all time, and still changes managers. Obviously, some other manager might decide to stay here for life. Busby was an ex-Liverpool captain and legend (having also played for City) and stayed here for life. SAF had no relation with United and stayed here for life. Who knows, maybe some manager with no relation with us, would do the same.

Of course, someone might say that we would prefer less trophy as long as it is with the same manager. I call it bullshit though. I know for sure that I would celebrate a trophy we win with LVG or some other manager, as much as I celebrated the trophies we won with SAF.

...

Now the other way around, he has only a slightly higher risk. How exactly you know that? How do you think that a guy who has managed 4 matches in his life offers only a slightly higher risk than one of the best managers of all time (Pep, Mourinho or Ancelotti). That is like saying signing Odegaard instead of Messi/Ronaldo offers only a slightly higher risk, but on the other side offers more reward cause he is younger and would give us many more years of service. Obviously, that might turn out to be the case and Odegaard might be just a bit worse than them (or even better) and offer us 2 decades instead of 5 years. Or more likely, he can turn out to be just one of the overhyped players that we see. Similarily, Giggs might turn out to be great and then the reward is very big, but more likely he'll turn to be shit like the vast majority of managers.

Now to make it a bit mroe personal (and I would want a honest asnwer): if you are forced to bet your yearly wage in who will do better (be more succesful), Giggs or Pep/Mourinho/Ancelotti at United with Giggs having a coefficient of 5.0 (100000 pounds win if you put 20000) and Pep/Mou/Ancelotti a coefficient of 2.0 (40000 pounds win if you put 20000), which one would you choose?

 

[Shamwow]

It's remarkable how some are happy to suspend logic and strategy for romance and identity. What they are actually saying is "I don't care whether we are successful, as long as I achieve a level of comfort with the mediocrity we achieve".

Some people think we can have both. Don't put words in their mouths, that's terrible debating.

 

[devilish]

They aren't the only advantages, I'm not just gonna repeat what walrus has already said though.

I can add to more. For example it brings continuity to a superb club whose passing from a winning streak or are at the cusp of greatness (ex Liverpool during the 80s, AC Milan during the 90s, Barcelona after Rijkaard). As said it doesnt apply to us.

The connection thing is purely BS.

A- Coaches follow their manager IF they believe in him
B- Connection will players isn't really needed in a football world were managers and players keep hopping from one club to another.

 

[afrocentricity]

It's remarkable how some are happy to suspend logic and strategy for romance and identity. What they are actually saying is "I don't care whether we are successful, as long as I achieve a level of comfort with the mediocrity we achieve".

Ok, so who said that then? Name and shame them...

I don't recall anyone saying that, I don't even recall anyone assuming that Giggs would be a success (which has been referenced multiple times on the last few pages)...

So much strawmanning...

 

[Cheesy]

It's remarkable how some are happy to suspend logic and strategy for romance and identity. What they are actually saying is "I don't care whether we are successful, as long as I achieve a level of comfort with the mediocrity we achieve".

The strange thing is that several posters don't seem to realise that we'd quickly grow to love a manager from outwith the club if they were incredibly successful. Imagine if someone like Guardiola came in, won the league and CL double, and endeared himself to the fans, for example. He'd already be a club hero, and would immediately be seen as someone who has cemented himself as a major figure within the club.

Giggs being successful as manager doesn't really mean anything more than any other manager being successful, because that other manager would soon come to be seen in the same light as our current legends are, both in on the field and in management, if they were successful with us.

 

[Raoul]

Some people think we can have both. Don't put words in their mouths, that's terrible debating.

I somehow doubt it. Look at the suspension of logic that takes place when the pro-Giggs boys list why he should be manager - things like, he's worked under Fergie and LvG, and "he was a fantastic player", and "he knows the club". Each being utterly irrelevant to being qualified to manage United.

 

[Raoul]

Ok, so who said that then? Name and shame them...

I don't recall anyone saying that, I don't even recall anyone assuming that Giggs would be a success (which has been referenced multiple times on the last few pages)...

So much strawmanning...

It can be tacitly inferred from anyone who takes the position that qualifications are less important than identity.

 

[Shamwow]

I somehow doubt it. Look at the suspension of logic that takes place when the pro-Giggs boys list why he should be manager - things like, he's worked under Fergie and LvG, and "he was a fantastic player", and "he knows the club". Each being utterly irrelevant to being qualified to manage United.

Knowing the club is not irrelevant.