Yea and who's done that? Name and shame homie...
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
I had been engaged in a discussion were a pro nepotism poster said that we should lower our expectations (from top 4 to 7th place) to give the darling of Manchester a bigger chance to succeed. So yeah Raoul isn't so far off from that statesment
It certainly is as a qualification, as most candidates whether inside or outside the club know full well what United is all about.
That's clearly not what they're saying.
Most of the pro Giggs lot seem to acknowledge that it's a (huge) gamble. Part and parcel of the romantic notion is obviously that this gamble pays off. The idea isn't to hire Giggs and stick with Giggs because he's Giggs - and as long as he's Giggs and remains in charge nothing else matters. The "identity" of Manchester United is to have Giggs in charge - nothing beyond that. That isn't what most believe or advocate.
It's gambling on Giggs to become a success they find appealing. I've never met a proper United fan who didn't want the club to win - and win big. This "they are pleased to settle for mediocrity" notion is a straw man we see (too) often in these debates - was the same with Moyes.
Plenty of peeps who are arguing for Giggsy. Go through the past 10-15 pages.
It was to most top managers including SAF and Busby (who came to United from outside), Mourinho, Guardiola (Bayern), Ancelotti etc. Do you think Sir Bobby would have won more honours as manager for us than that guy who was managing Aberdeen?
I've been involved in the last how many pages and like I've said I haven't seen it... If you have please point it out, it'd be more helpful than just throwing everyone in the same box...
Some believe we have to lower our expectations to make Ryan Giggs a successful story
Yes. Me for one.
Do you think one of the other experienced managers on the list of potentials at the time would have? Fergie was one of a kind. Stupid comparison that needs to stop being used repeatedly.
Perhaps initially. But I don't think anyone actually wants us to permanently lower our standards just for the sake of seeing Giggs in a suit in the dugout.
You can argue against the idea all you want - I'm not a believer in it myself. But those who want us to - effectively - gamble on Giggs are generally no less hungry for trophies than those who think the idea is ridiculous.
They would probably do better than sir Bobby Charlton
Ok, I'd prefer to get Pep in and keep Giggs on... Simeone? Not so much... Don't know enough about him.
It seems like our only choices for some fans are Pep, Carlo, and Jose.
The irony is that fergie would not have been on their shortlists by the standards used (consistent success at big clubs)
The irony is that fergie would not have been on their shortlists by the standards used (consistent success at big clubs)
It's the same when it comes to signings,
‘Martial? Who the feck is he? Get Pedro in nao!‘
Irrespective of the time most have lost the concept of what is good for the club. Lowering the club's expectations for the sake of 1 man is not good for the club as much as sitting out of the CL for a year or two so that the darling of Manchester can learn how to play real life football manager with his class of 92 mates. It seems years ago when we used to say that no one is bigger than the club. It seems that sentimentality had taken over the United way
What? 
To appoint Giggs I think, means that you have to ignore a few things.
That great players usually don't make great managers. (infinite examples)
That the big clubs have sky high standards - which means a history of winning trophies and dealing with big players is desirable
That working under great managers doesn't necessarily automatically give you the same gifts. (Kidd, McClaren Queiroz just for 3 recent assistants we've had)
Having very recently seen how badly an experienced manager at midtable level can fail, it would seem an incredible risk to go for someone with zero experience. Sorry, those few games after Moyes, which were mixed success themselves. He has a clean slate you say, but since when does having next to no experience make someone a clever candidate? Do top businesses employ some guy who has no history of the job? Not really, unless there's pure nepotism in play, which is the only real reason Giggsy would even be in the consideration.
That great players usually don't make great managers. (infinite examples)
That the big clubs have sky high standards - which means a history of winning trophies and dealing with big players is desirable
That working under great managers doesn't necessarily automatically give you the same gifts. (Kidd, McClaren Queiroz just for 3 recent assistants we've had)
Having very recently seen how badly an experienced manager at midtable level can fail, it would seem an incredible risk to go for someone with zero experience. Sorry, those few games after Moyes, which were mixed success themselves. He has a clean slate you say, but since when does having next to no experience make someone a clever candidate? Do top businesses employ some guy who has no history of the job? Not really, unless there's pure nepotism in play, which is the only real reason Giggsy would even be in the consideration.
In fairness, I do think many would've considered him a viable option - his achievements with Aberdeen were THAT impressive. But in general you've got a point. I can easily see that some of our members would've claimed that they weren't impressive enough.
Similarly (as mentioned before) I've no doubt that many would've downplayed Giggs' achievements and talents if he had been in an identical position to the one Pep found himself in when he took over at Barca. *
* No, I'm not comparing them - I'm making a hypothetical point.
People want us playing risky and exciting football on the field, maybe we should take risks off it too.
I have nothing against appointing Giggs IF he does what other people did (Klopp, Mourinho, Simeone etc) and worked his way out to the top.
I'd love to have Giggs if he manages elsewhere successfully first and proves himself as a manager.
He is working his way to the top. At United.
Who are "we"? The club - or common fans being "sentimental"?
Do you believe common fans should not be "sentimental" - and if so, why?
No he's playing safe. If LVG wins than he shares the spoils. Whenever he loses, its not Giggsie's fault cause he's not the manager. The assistant manager role had outgrown him. Its time for him to spread his wings and shows his worth elsewhere just like the likes of Mclaren and Kidd did
Out of curiosity, what would be enough to prove his worth? Could you go into more detail than '...manage somewhere else...'
What would he need to achieve and in what time scale?
Common sense and the good for the club should take precedence on sentimentality. Imagine what would have happened if we opted for Sir Bobby instead of that young manager from Aberdeen
The thought of Giggs possibly taking over terrifies me but if he'd succeed It'd be fantastic. Not so sure the owners will go down that road though.
However, the Moyes brigade last season (you were a commander there
) were content to see us becoming mediocre as long as Moyes was in charge, for some very bizarre reasons. Almost always, having a non-top manager minimizes completely the chances of winning trophies.If he's able to achieve what Klopp and Simeone did than he should be given a chance at United. Klopp needed two hops to manage a top EPL club (Mainz and Dortmund). Simeone needed more (although he did achieved what he did in around 5-7 years)
And 'prove himself' at a mid table club? That still wouldn't be good enough for you. He's doing the right thing, he has make himself an integral part of the club, he's part of the fabric of the club and with the right people around him he has the potential to manage the club.
I'm pro-Giggs.
I understand that it's a gamble, and I acknowledge that a big part of the reason I want him as our next manager is the sentiment and romance of it all. I'm sure that's the same for many on the pro-Giggs side of things.
That said, he has the coaching badges, he knows the club, he knows the players, and he knows what is expected of him and everyone he will be in charge of.
The main argument against Giggs is that he won't have any managerial experience if he is given the job when van Gaal goes. There's no arguing against that because it's true. However, hiring anyone to be Manchester United manager is a gamble when the expectations are so high.
The list of (potentially) eligible successors to van Gaal includes Guardiola, Ancelotti and Mourinho, amongst other slightly less fancied names. It's very easy to create arguments against hiring any of them, particularly when you're framing their hypothetical appointments as gambles.
Guardiola has never managed in the Premier League and only has experience of taking over already brilliant sides in somewhat uncompetitive leagues. It would be a gamble to hire him when he's unproven at managing an underdog in a very competitive league.
Ancelotti hasn't been at a club that doesn't burn through money and players like there's no tomorrow since he left AC Milan in 2009. It would be a gamble to hire a manager who hasn't managed a club without a policy for annually high expenditure and player turnover when we like to develop young players.
Mourinho has strong connections to a direct rival and has a track record for burning out teams within just a few seasons. It would be a gamble to hire a manager whose sole focus is on the short-term when we're a club with a history of building for the long-term.
Giggs is going to be a gamble whatever he achieves before (hypothetically) being given the United job. Personally, I'd like to see us take that gamble sooner rather than later. This doesn't mean I want Manchester United to lower their standards, it just means I'd love to see us win things with one of our own leading the way.
I understand that it's a gamble, and I acknowledge that a big part of the reason I want him as our next manager is the sentiment and romance of it all. I'm sure that's the same for many on the pro-Giggs side of things.
That said, he has the coaching badges, he knows the club, he knows the players, and he knows what is expected of him and everyone he will be in charge of.
The main argument against Giggs is that he won't have any managerial experience if he is given the job when van Gaal goes. There's no arguing against that because it's true. However, hiring anyone to be Manchester United manager is a gamble when the expectations are so high.
The list of (potentially) eligible successors to van Gaal includes Guardiola, Ancelotti and Mourinho, amongst other slightly less fancied names. It's very easy to create arguments against hiring any of them, particularly when you're framing their hypothetical appointments as gambles.
Guardiola has never managed in the Premier League and only has experience of taking over already brilliant sides in somewhat uncompetitive leagues. It would be a gamble to hire him when he's unproven at managing an underdog in a very competitive league.
Ancelotti hasn't been at a club that doesn't burn through money and players like there's no tomorrow since he left AC Milan in 2009. It would be a gamble to hire a manager who hasn't managed a club without a policy for annually high expenditure and player turnover when we like to develop young players.
Mourinho has strong connections to a direct rival and has a track record for burning out teams within just a few seasons. It would be a gamble to hire a manager whose sole focus is on the short-term when we're a club with a history of building for the long-term.
Giggs is going to be a gamble whatever he achieves before (hypothetically) being given the United job. Personally, I'd like to see us take that gamble sooner rather than later. This doesn't mean I want Manchester United to lower their standards, it just means I'd love to see us win things with one of our own leading the way.
I think he would have been. We had won feck all for around 2 decades, we were more similar to current Liverpool rather than current United. The very top managers were probably impossible back then. Fergie was more like a Klopp/Simeone-type of appointment rather than Pep/Mourinho/Ancelotti-type of appointment.
Of course it wouldn't. He will have to win honours and trophies to get the job. However if he does well at a mid table club than he will probably get opportunities at a better club. That's what managers who want to manage top clubs usually do. Why should Giggs be any different? Maybe because he's the darling of Manchester?
I'd love to see Giggsy take the path that Ole has taken since he retired. Starting off with a smaller club and leading them to a degree of success, then taking on an English side where he has had mixed, mainly poorer, results. If Giggsy could take over a lower level Prem club and get them challenging for a Europa league spot, then he would probably be worthy of being included in the discussion of future United managers.
devilish alredy explained that. Get achievements like Simeone, Klopp or Mourinho did (before the Chelsea job).
Personally:
- Getting an Everton/Southampton (or European equivalentes) type of club and then becoming a regular UCL contender should do it.
- Getting an Everton/Southampton (or European equivalentes) type of club and then winning Europa League and a couple of FA/Carling Cup should do it.
- Getting a Lazio/Roma type of club and winning Serie A should do it too
To be fair, all of these are less than Simeone (with Atletico), Klopp (with BVB) and Mourinho (with Porto) did. And that should be very managable for a manager who aspires to become United manager. Especially if he is competing with the likes of Mourinho, Pep and Ancelotti who have already won multiple UCL and league trophies.
Last edited:
So you are telling me you want Giggs to win honours at another club? Another club other than United winning honours? Ok.
Ancelotti has won 2 CLs with a club who spend less money than we do and Mourinho did extremely well with Porto. We're big spenders too
sensible. I think if he is not appointed at United, he will try this path.
As was mentioned many times in the Moyes debates last year, 1986 was a different world. And, in any case, Fergie's record pre-United was similar to that of Klopp or Simeone.
- Status