I guess when something rarely works it's not worth attempting...
Also I think I need to be thread banned, for my sanity
Also I think I need to be thread banned, for my sanity
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
This is the phrase I've been looking for. And you know what, years ago I listened to one of Ferguson's interview on the very subject of whether great players make great managers. Funnily, Fergie's argument was along similar lines of what's highlighted above (even if expressed differently). It's therefore unbelievable that he would abandon that common sense view just because he thinks of Giggs as his adopted son
Top athletes don't know how to struggle? Wow.
But Zidane is not doing the exact same thing as Giggs. Giggs is assisting the manager - Zidane is responsible for a team - never mind that it's their youth or whoever. The point is that he's still managing something, whereas Giggs is not.
Not when the consequences are massive. No, generally you have to be bit more grown-up.
There's risk in everything. Everything in life can go tits up despite best planning but usually best planning involves minimising the risk. We won't have done that if we appoint Giggs.
This is such a childish attitude to have in this argument.
I know the feeling!
Not in the context of management where you can't just focus on yourself - in management you're thinking of everyone and everything else - that is a completely different scenario. You cannot be as selfish because you're in charge of human beings and you have to be able to communicate with them, and guide them to the best of your abilities. You can't block everything out like you can as an athlete. Hope that makes sense?Top athletes don't know how to struggle? Wow.
Childish? Ok, if you want. Being childish has worked well for me in life...
How do you know Giggs isn't an exception? I do understand why people doubt him, but to discount him totally is as bad as saying he will be next Guardiola or such. When you look at Keane, or Robson, yes they were more influential as a player and better captain, but that's all they have. The romance behind Giggs appointment is somewhat totally different. Other than his uniqueness of epitomizing our club values and culture, he is also intelligent and adaptive (reinvent himself from time to tim, evolving into different roles throughout his career), a true winner and manage himself very well over past 20 years (playing at top level from 17 to 37, keep winning trophies), and very discipline on field (never get sent off in our shirt, not even once, over his 20 years long career, which shows his maturity over others). Name me another player who has those traits, I bet there just isn't any. Whether he could translate those qualties into management remain to be seen. But he is a very different case to other players you've mentioned.
Have you ever heard of/read about Lenny Wilkens? The NBA coach?
None of the traits you mentioned are acceptable substitutes for managerial experience. Let's see how he fares managing a club before handing him the United job on a gift wrapped silver platter.
Kinell, I leave the thread for an hour and I have some 100 new messages to come back to.
Giggs isnt their manager (yet) though. Whichever way we paint it, existing close relationships with a coaching setup that has vast experience and has delivered success, is a good thing. And they have not just delivered success, they have delivered it at United. Basically "continuity" -
I just spent a couple of posts answering that exact question, including (I think) the one you quoted.
@Invictus @Revan
The "rewards" I was speaking of were that if Giggs succeeds then it is highly possible that we have our manager sorted for the next 20+ years. No other candidate can offer that. Furthermore, the story and romanticism of one of our own doing it, would make that success all the sweeter.
This isnt to say that trophies would be bittersweet under another manager, and it isnt to say that they should make me manager because I could be there for 50 years. I am just talking about risk:reward. For me, the risk with Giggs is not much (if at all) greater than other candidates - @Alex99 made a good post on that with some arguments I have made previously, that even the top tier managers like Pep, Ancelotti and Mourinho all have potential gaps in their CV, and have not managed a situation quite like United before. Nor has Giggs of course, but he has been in and around the club for a long time and understands what has to be done on a day to day basis, understands the expectations, understands the club etc.
Giggs isnt their manager (yet) though. Whichever way we paint it, existing close relationships with a coaching setup that has vast experience and has delivered success, is a good thing. And they have not just delivered success, they have delivered it at United. Basically "continuity" -
I just spent a couple of posts answering that exact question, including (I think) the one you quoted.
@Invictus @Revan
The "rewards" I was speaking of were that if Giggs succeeds then it is highly possible that we have our manager sorted for the next 20+ years. No other candidate can offer that. Furthermore, the story and romanticism of one of our own doing it, would make that success all the sweeter.
This isnt to say that trophies would be bittersweet under another manager, and it isnt to say that they should make me manager because I could be there for 50 years. I am just talking about risk:reward. For me, the risk with Giggs is not much (if at all) greater than other candidates - @Alex99 made a good post on that with some arguments I have made previously, that even the top tier managers like Pep, Ancelotti and Mourinho all have potential gaps in their CV, and have not managed a situation quite like United before. Nor has Giggs of course, but he has been in and around the club for a long time and understands what has to be done on a day to day basis, understands the expectations, understands the club etc.
No, but I just googled him - very impressive - an exception to the rule. Most great players fail at management - that is my point, and one of the reasons is that they are more susceptible to failing at a managerial level because an extremely gifted athlete will more times than not experience success. The psychological aspect of having to deal with the real possibility of not winning as much as you're used to is where the problem comes in.
It goes to show that just sticking managers in bands of suitability based on their records is massively oversimplifying things because Klopp and Fergie shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. It would have been a shame to miss out Fergie because he didn't fit into some strict definition of who is successful enough to manage this club. If the club see something in Giggs then maybe we should let them take the chance for us.
There are lots of other examples in American Sports. Google Joe Torre.
And Brian Clough.
This ain't American sports. And I bet those American examples had far more personality in their little finger than our Mr Giggs.
Rory - now you're on to American sports to make your point
You are persistent - I'll give you that.
Or how about Mike Ditka? Chicago Bears legend turned assistant manager and eventually manager who lead them to the Superbowl. Folks should read about him. The parallels with Giggs are uncanny.
Well, if you think so then really there is no point in continuing this. If a guy who has managed 4 matches isn't more risky than some of the best managers of all time, then what is the point on discussing this?
If you really believe this, then 'deluded' is a weak word to describe you (no offense there). I can understand people who want Giggs for some bizarre reasons (well, probably I can't understand them entirely) but saying that the risk with Giggs is not much (if at all) greater than other candidates it is an insane opinion.
Where's all this "top athletes don't make good managers" shit come from? It's not a guarantee, but have you lot even taken a step back and seen the names you're all reeling off?
Pep Guardiola won 6 La Ligas, 2 Copa del Reys, 1 Champions League, 1 Cup Winners Cup and 2 Super Cups in a Barca career lasting over a decade, as well as being capped nearly 50 times for Spain.
Carlo Ancelotti won 3 Serie As, 4 Coppa Italias, 2 European Cups, 2 Intercontinental Cups, and reached another European Cup final in a playing career in Italy lasting over a decade, as well as winning over 25 caps for Italy, even being part of the squad that came 3rd in the 1990 World Cup.
Diego Simeone won 1 La Liga, 1 Copa del Rey, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup, 1 Serie A and 1 Coppa Italia in a playing career lasting almost two decades, as well as winning over 100 caps for Argentina, winning 2 Copa Americas, 1 Confederations Cup and representing them in 3 World Cups.
Frank de Boer was mentioned in another thread, and he won 5 Eredevisies, 2 KNVB Cups, 1 Champions League, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup, 1 Intercontinental Cup and 1 La Liga in a career lasting almost two decades, as well as being the most capped Dutch outfield player in history, captaining the team to the semis of both the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000.
The only one of the commonly touted names that didn't have an illustrious playing career is Mourinho.
Manchester United have been title contenders pretty much every year since the inception of the Premier League, and I include the current season in that. Manchester City are now very much title contenders, if not title favourites for this season. Arsenal are certainly title contenders this season, and have been for a number of previous seasons having not finished outside of the CL places in absolute yonks. Chelsea are, and have been, title contenders fairly consistently for over a decade now. The only teams consistently gunning for titles and CL places in Spain are Real Madrid and Barcelona. The only team consistently gunning for titles in Germany is Bayern Munich. This isn't an opinion, this is a simple fact. 4 is more than 2, and 4 is more than 1, hence, there are more title contending teams in the Premier League than in Spain or Germany.
Pep Guardiola won 6 La Ligas, 2 Copa del Reys, 1 Champions League, 1 Cup Winners Cup and 2 Super Cups in a Barca career lasting over a decade, as well as being capped nearly 50 times for Spain.
Carlo Ancelotti won 3 Serie As, 4 Coppa Italias, 2 European Cups, 2 Intercontinental Cups, and reached another European Cup final in a playing career in Italy lasting over a decade, as well as winning over 25 caps for Italy, even being part of the squad that came 3rd in the 1990 World Cup.
Diego Simeone won 1 La Liga, 1 Copa del Rey, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup, 1 Serie A and 1 Coppa Italia in a playing career lasting almost two decades, as well as winning over 100 caps for Argentina, winning 2 Copa Americas, 1 Confederations Cup and representing them in 3 World Cups.
Frank de Boer was mentioned in another thread, and he won 5 Eredevisies, 2 KNVB Cups, 1 Champions League, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup, 1 Intercontinental Cup and 1 La Liga in a career lasting almost two decades, as well as being the most capped Dutch outfield player in history, captaining the team to the semis of both the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000.
The only one of the commonly touted names that didn't have an illustrious playing career is Mourinho.
Manchester United have been title contenders pretty much every year since the inception of the Premier League, and I include the current season in that. Manchester City are now very much title contenders, if not title favourites for this season. Arsenal are certainly title contenders this season, and have been for a number of previous seasons having not finished outside of the CL places in absolute yonks. Chelsea are, and have been, title contenders fairly consistently for over a decade now. The only teams consistently gunning for titles and CL places in Spain are Real Madrid and Barcelona. The only team consistently gunning for titles in Germany is Bayern Munich. This isn't an opinion, this is a simple fact. 4 is more than 2, and 4 is more than 1, hence, there are more title contending teams in the Premier League than in Spain or Germany.
In Rugby there is Galthié.
also examples of guys that spent a lot of time on the bench becoming great managers/coaches. especially in baseball.
However, the Moyes brigade last season (you were a commander there
Being patient in the short term because you believe (or rather hope, in Moyes' case) it will pay off in the long term is not the same as being "content to see us become mediocre".
But sure - score a cheap point or two, I'm feeling generous.
Why do you think people like me supported Moyes? Do you actually believe that I fancied the sight of Moyes wearing a United tie so much that I didn't care what he actually achieved? Just having him as our manager - him being Scottish and all - was always going to be enough for me? Is that what you seriously believe?
I completely disagree. We weren't title challengers in Moyes year, neither last season. I think that it is unlikely that we'll be title challengers this season. We weren't title challengers for three years between 2002-2003 and 2006-2007.
Arsenal haven't been title challengers for a decade. They usually are more clser to Spurs (on points) than with the team who finishes first. Have they finished once within 10 points of the champion in the last 10 years? They are as much title challengers as Valencia or Schalke, on other words, not at all.
This ain't American sports. And I bet those American examples had far more personality in their little finger than our Mr Giggs.
Rory - now you're on to American sports to make your point
You are persistent - I'll give you that.
Em? You started it with you sweeping statement about athletes! And let's not forget our American owners understand American sports. Just because 'great footballers don't become great managers' is a truism in England doesn't mean it will be forever. If you'd like more 'soccer ball' examples read about Mario Zagallo and Franz Beckenbauer. Both of whom went straight to retirement as players to winning the flipping World Cup as managers. Yes. THE World Cup not the rugby mini-tournament!
This ain't American sports. And I bet those American examples had far more personality in their little finger than our Mr Giggs.
Rory - now you're on to American sports to make your point
You are persistent - I'll give you that.
Read about the examples I gave you. Both mild-mannered chaps. I chose them for that reason. Very Giggs like.
IF the owners appoint Giggs, what would be the logical reasons for the appointment?
This is a general question.
This is a general question.
The point I'm making is - there is only a handful of great footballers who have become good coaches. The probability that they will fail is quite high. United are in no position to test those waters. Our financial model is precarious and predicated on success, or at least partial success on the field. You cannot risk this by trying to prove a point that maybe Giggs will come good. I don't care about your other examples - all it says is it may work - but it may not, and we shouldn't be innovators in this regard in English football because we can't afford to. As I said before, Man City have unlimited funds they don't need to earn - we on the other hand can lose a hell of a lot if we make stupid business decisions.
Why are you so afraid of letting him go out and show what he can or cannot do? Is it because you know he will fail?
Continuity
There isn't one. Which is why I would be absolutely shocked if they made such a decision.
He has potential, he is cheap and the better options weren't available. I suppose.
I would agree. But surely there must a number of other reasons. Think I posted elswhere about general assumptions I made.
I think he will be our next manager. But I wish I knew what teh owners know.
Eh? How can you say continuity when we haven't seen Giggs do anything in management yet?
Our traditions and ideals will not be 'discontinued' if we hire someone else.
You see that's where we fundamentally disagree. I believe we should be innovators. Giggs is an innovative appointment. Why am I 'afraid' of letting him go? I'm not. I just don't think that's necessary. I support the innovation of LVG setting him up for success and Giggs managing for years to come. I want stability in our management team.
think they wont be worried about price tbh. I wont rule out other options either. Simeone, De Boer...
Because LVG came in for the short term, in theory if giggs takes over there should be some continuity. If giggs isn't going to take over then what is the point in LVG staying for another season, why let him spend more money and keep rebuilding if he is retiring at the end of next season because a new manager could want to make lots more changes again and it's just more transition.
"Best managers of all time"? I think I can throw your "deluded" comment right back at you there.
Guardiola took over a Barca team that already featured some of the best players in the world and one of the GOAT, in a fairly non-competitive league. He took that team up a level, but realistically I dont think anyone could call Barcelona a hard job when he took over. He enjoyed great success, and then burned out (a concern when thinking about the intensity of the PL), before joining Bayern - another great side, second only to Barca themselves in Europe. Again, not a hard job if we are being honest.
Guardiola has not had to build a team, he has not had to transition a a team or plan for the long term. His managerial record so far is purely one of joining a highly successful team, and continuing that success. He is largely unproven in pretty much all other areas, and there is the concern about him "burning out".
Ancelotti? Most of his success in recent years has come in clubs where he has been very much a short term appointment, and purely been required to deliver instant success while being given almost a blank chequebook. He hasnt lasted more than 3 years at a single club since 2009 (I believe).
Mourinho is much the same in that since Porto, his only jobs have been short term positions with a practically unlimited budget.
If anything, Klopp is the one who has a slightly different/better track record of taking a team and building something over several years, integrating new players, transitioning his teams, and not simply joining a "top of the pile" club, but rather giving himself a challenge, much like he has done again now with Liverpool. To me, that speaks volumes about him compared with those listed above.
You may argue "But Walrus, I dont care if we have short term appointments and spend lots of money, I just want trophies NOW at any cost!!!1" in which case I would suggest Man City or Chelsea would be a better club for you. I dont want to delve too deep into all the "losing our identity" stuff here, its more simply to illustrate that none of these so-called "best of all time" managers have really been tested recently, or sought out a challenge themselves, or handled any sort of long term approach. Hell, Mourinho is suffering his classic third season syndrome currently with Chelsea and looks like a fish out of water when (finally) faced with a bit of adversity, and generally when leaving clubs he leaves a big old mess for the next guy to have to clean up. Is that someone I want at United? Not really.
As I have said from the start - every appointment is a risk. The only person who is truly qualified for the United job is Ferguson, and even he would be a risk (outdated methods blah blah blah). Failing that, the next best person for me might as well be the one who has already been in the club, seen successful managers first hand and how they approached the job, and the various situations that came with it. A person who is being groomed for the position as we speak by a manager who is very serious about philosophy and structure, and who has stated that they are building a team for the next manager. If Giggs shows himself to not be up to the task, then he will be sacked, just like anyone else would be.
That is one way of saying it. I genuinely cannot understand how someone watched Moyes for 10 years at Everton, and then watched him for a year at United and believed (or hoped, or dreamed) that there is even an astronomically small chance that Moyes can become a success here.
If that isn't the definition of delusion, then I don't know what it can be:
delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
...
Now to Giggsy. It is still very unlikely that he'll make a top manager (for the simple reason that it is very unlikely for any person to make a top manager), but at-least in his case, we are at unknown. In Moyes case it was like a mathematical equation whom you know the solution.
To answer you question (and bear in mind that different people wanted him to continue for different reasons), I thought that it was more than anything a feeling of arrogance, superiority and "we're better than others" type of argument. Combined with "support your manager, we're fans not customers" and a nostalgia of old good times. Added probably with a dose of loyalty to Fergie.
Undoubdetly, those are the same reasons on why you (and many others) want Giggs as manager. In reality - unless you really know Giggs well - there isn't even a small rational argument to make in his favour. There is sentimentalism, romanticism, being fans not robots, trophies counting twice with Giggs as manager etc but no rational reasons. As I asked Walrus (he didn't reply) would someone of you (if he was forced to do so) put his yearly wage in Giggs to become a success here, if the alternative was Mourinho or Pep. Or if you were a businessman and the cost of failure was 200m, would you have opted for Giggs?
I think that the answer is clear to that, but anyway, you can play the 'fan not customer' card. Which is fine, different people want different things. Some want to enjoy United winning and playing great, some want to give chances to people who have no business on becoming the manager of United and then dreaming that they'll conquer the world.
Eh? How can you say continuity when we haven't seen Giggs do anything in management yet?
Our traditions and ideals will not be 'discontinued' if we hire someone else.
I have answered this just now. LVG sets him up for success. Giggs succeeds him. The work on the team/squad is not disrupted. Giggs taking over provides continuity in that sense and in a wider sense; continuity with the values Ferguson embedded.
Rory - innovators on the pitch - not in making stupid business decisions that would have huge consequences. We don't need to put ourselves in such a position - so why do it. It's like you know a train is coming, but you still step on the line, knowing if it comes you're bloody brown bread, but still you do it. You're arguments are just not realistic.
I don't want Giggs as our next manager.
- Status