We are in the unusual position of knowing when our manager will leave, we have no idea who we be available and in this scenario appointing giggs makes sense, it is obviously a gamble but so is assuming we can get the right replacement. I doubt moyes or LVg were our number one targets, the likes of Ancelotti and klopp werent interested but a year later both were avaialble, it's a bit of a lottery really.
The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
- Status
We are in the unusual position of knowing when our manager will leave, we have no idea who we be available and in this scenario appointing giggs makes sense, it is obviously a gamble but so is assuming we can get the right replacement. I doubt moyes or LVg were our number one targets, the likes of Ancelotti and klopp werent interested but a year later both were avaialble, it's a bit of a lottery really.
Yeah, this is an angle I hadnt really given much thought to, but I think it is a(nother) valid point.
Not sentimentality, but the fact that he's actually done a decent job and has us in a title challenging position. If he was struggling, then sure, but he's not is he? The only criticism is play style really. Then there's also United's ethos and traditions. We don't want to become like Real Madrid or Chelsea to instantly just sack managers. When the manager is struggling like Moyes was, then sack him. But if the results are fine, which they are, then there's no point in sacking him as it would just cause unrest within the club and yet more transition.
But that's not a rebuilding and even with Giggs we will have a transitional period, he isn't going to copy LVG's way of doing things and he will have to adapt to the role of manager.
Fair enough mate, but just to elaborate a bit on what I meant to say there, United is but one, among 6 or 7 historical clubs that are comparable, or atleast close to us in terms of stature - that includes the likes of Real Madrid, Milan, Bayern Munich, Barcelona, Juventus and Liverpool. Their positions can fluctuate depending on the era (right now we have a loosely defined Top 4 with the decline of Seria A and Liverpool's 2 decade long ineptitude), but in terms of their overall achievements since their existence, that's the elite order, the best of the best. If those managers have dealt with the expectations of working at some of the other clubs (eg. Ancelotti didn't manage the Milan or Juventus of today, he did it at a time when Seria A was arguably the best league around - and hosted the likes Ronaldo, Vieri, Maldini, Veron, Buffon, Nedved, Zidane, Thuram, Cannavaro and atleast another couple dozen top shelf players), why can't they do it at United? That's my basic point here. Yes, we do give managers more freedom and they will have some added responsibilities, but are we really all that different at the core, in a way that necessitates learning from the likes of Fergie? I don't believe so, to be totally honest, the likes of Guardiola and Ancelotti are accomplished enough and are intelligent enough to figure things out sharpish.
Also, the lack of experience we're talking about isn't pertaining to the operational side of things, which is what learning about the day to day running of the club from Fergie and Van Gaal implies. The lack of experience argument against Giggs is more about him not having faced some of the best tacticians around and coming out on top, not managing in the deep end of the Champions League, not managing a team in a tense title race, not tailoring the tactics for a major final, not building or revitalizing a team from the core like some of the other managers have done, not dealing with the pressure and strain of being an elite manager for multiple seasons, not having won any silverware as a manager (him watching Fergie do it means next to nothing to be honest - if someone studied under Rembrandt or Van Gogh, was she/ he going to become a great painter themselves, when compared with a Warhol or Picasso)? The analogy pertains to the argument that you can watch someone else do it for years, but until you've done that yourself, there's always a massive risk, especially in a job when you're the ultimate one in-charge. Unlike a Guardiola or Ancelotti, he has zero experience in terms of things that really matter when it comes to football. Operational experience via association, or being an assistant manager when ultimately the manager is the primary decision maker is tangential, the biggest duties of a manager are linked to results on the football pitch, which the other managers have delivered in plenty over the years, unlike Giggs, hence the skepticism.
Alright, for what its worth, if Giggs is appointed, I'd question the judgement of it at first, but get over it and support him as a manager, as I did with Moyes, even when it became pretty evident that we wasn't going to take us anywhere. But still, one has to question how wise such a move will be. I'm terribly afraid of the way the club has operated in recent seasons. When you've had an ageing manager who has been at the club for 25+ years, you must always have a quality blueprint to prepare for his inevitable departure. Gill leaving simultaneously just muddled the water even further.
Right there was out biggest mistake in appointing a manager not cut for the level, and having romantic sentiments of continuity, and being cut from the same cloth, instead of acting professionally and aiming for a top, top manager. We did it way back in the day with Wilf McGuiness, and although Moyes wasn't as experienced, he wasn't a top, top manager, just like McGuiness wasn't when compared with a Jock Stein for example. After that debacle, we should have moved heaven and earth to get the best possible manager in, maybe make a move for the best around, like Ernst Happel. Instead we went with Francis O'Farrell. If we appoint Giggs, there's a high chance that we will be repeating the same kind of mistakes over and over again, instead of learning our lessons, and preferring merit over romanticism.
As to why we didn't go for Klopp or Ancelotti in the summer, I dunno mate. But I do know one thing, Malcolm Glazer was a shrewd man when it came to sports, and his sons aren't unfortunately. And them being the owners doesn't help us one bit, given the track record of their other sporting ventures in recent seasons. eg. Their NFL team placed dead last of 32 teams, as of the last season, haven't even made the playoffs in about a decade, and are arguably the worst team in the league right now. They've made one rubbish decision after the other since Malcolm's influence dwindled with age, which led to where that team is today. When you couple that factoid with Fergie becoming more mellow with age, and maybe letting his heart rule over head when it comes to a son-like figure in Giggs, it has the potential to set us back a long way.
We haven't won a trophy in 2 seasons, if we don't win it this season again, that will be half a decade with just the one League title, no Champions league title, and no FA Cup or League Cup title. That could snowball into something substantial. As supporters, we like to think United is invulnerable, but supporters of Liverpool and Arsenal probably thought the same when they went a couple of years without the trophy. Now, one club hasn't won the league in a quarter of a century, and the other didn't even win a trophy of any significance for a decade.
Yes, we have more money at our disposal to help us recover, but money doesn't guarantee success by itself. Which is why we should appoint the proven quantity, instead of making allowances which some other posters (not you) have suggested in this thread - give Giggs one season, if he doesn't make Top 4, but atleast make Top 6 no problem, give him another season to improve, then give him another for a title charge. That could well lead to a large barren spells. Once the players lose the taste of success (most of our players do't even know what titular success feels like in the first place), it becomes increasingly difficult to find the championship winning groove, the gradient is steep, and that can have long term ramifications. I understand that you wouldn't mind a Guardiola either, and IMO someone like him would be the most sensible choice. Realistically speaking, he would have us competing at the top almost immediately given his record thus far, we won't have to wait 1 or 2 or 3 years to challenge domestically or in Europe, and we wouldn't have to fashion a backroom staff to help him, given his resume as a thorough tactician.
Talk about twisting things to suit your own narrative.
This all started when discussing the potential flaws in Guardiola's CV. The one up for discussion is the lack of general competitiveness in the leagues he's managed in.
If you were to consider a Guardiola led Manchester United side a title contender, it is absolutely nailed on that you're going to have at least one, if not both, of City and Chelsea chasing you all of the way. There's also a decent chance Arsenal will do enough to keep you worried for a good two thirds of the season.
If you look at La Liga, a title contending Real Madrid generally only have Barca to worry about, and a title contending Barca generally only have Real Madrid to worry about. This is perfectly exemplified by the fact that only two teams other than those two have finished in the top two in the last decade. One of those is Atletico Madrid, and the other is Villarreal who were even relegated from the top flight in that time. Having just one team to compete with doesn't equate to competitiveness.
If you look at the Bundesliga, Bayern generally have absolutely no one to worry about. There hasn't been a consistent challenger in the past decade. Wolfsburg have been and gone, Stuttgart have been and gone, Werder Bremen have been and gone, and even Dortmund have been and gone. Managing a team without any sort of real challenger does not equate to competitiveness.
As for your assertion about one team running away with the PL, as if that isn't pretty much exactly what happens in Spain and Germany year in year out, do you actually watch football?
The average points difference between 1st and 2nd in the Premier League over the last 10 years is 5.1, over the last 5 years is 6, and over the last 3 years is 7. Comparatively, the average points difference between 1st and 2nd in La Liga over the last 10 years is 6.5, over the last 5 years is 6.6, and over the last 3 years is 6.7. The average points difference between 1st and 2nd in the Bundesliga over the last 10 years is 9.3, over the last 5 years is 13.8, and over the last 3 years is 18.
What can we tell from that? That the Premier League and La Liga have at least two decent title contenders each season, whilst the Bundesliga has a runaway winner nigh on every season.
Moving on, the average points difference between 1st and 3rd in the Premier League over the last 10 years is 11, over the last 5 years is 11.6, and over the last 3 years is 10. Comparatively, the average points difference between 1st and 3rd in La Liga over the last 10 years is 18.8, over the last 5 years is 21.4, and over the last 3 years is 14.3. For continuation's sake, the Bundesliga's points difference between 1st and 3rd over the last 10 years is 12.9, over the last 5 years is 18.4, and over the last 3 years is 21.7.
With this extra information we can now see that the Premier League's 3rd placed team is far more likely to find themselves with an outside chance with only a few games to go, whilst La Liga's is likely to find themselves way off by that time. Obviously in Germany the 3rd placed team was probably way off the pace about half way through.
The final comparison to do is 1st to 5th, to see how far off the pace the team outside of the top 4 finds themselves. The average points difference between 1st and 5th in the Premier League over the last 10 years is 21.9, over the last 5 years is 19.2, and over the last 3 years is 18. Comparatively, the average points difference between 1st and 5th in La Liga over the last 10 years is 27, over the last 5 years is 32.4, and over the last 3 years is 26.7. The average points difference between 1st and 5th in the Bundesliga over the last 10 years is 22.9, over the last 5 years is 28.8, and over the last 3 years is 33.3.
Aside from the average distance between 1st and 2nd increasing by ~2 points, if anything, the Premier League is getting more competitive, with the teams from 3rd to 5th closing in on the team in 1st. Conversely, the Bundesliga is getting less competitive, with 3rd finding themselves even further off the pace than 2nd, and 5th basically not even coming into consideration. La Liga has fluctuated a bit, but 3rd and 5th are still much further behind 1st than their Premier League counterparts.
I think there are three options LVG grooms giggs as his replacement, we gamble on the right man being available in eighteen months (or work our way down a list like we did with moyes) or LVG is replaced in the summer if there is an opportunity to bring in someone who can offer a longer term option.
Whether it will work or not no one knows but I can see why the first option might appeal to the club.
Whose?
Bravo. This is a great argument for the romantics. But it is flawed: not all who are arguing against the idea of Giggs are thinking like accountants. I am against it because to me it has a high probability of failing; that means United losing, being beaten. I support United and I hate it when we lose. I'm not really bothered about the bottom line (though I understand in theoretical manner its importance). I just want United to win matches; I'm against the idea of Giggs because I don't think he will give us the best chance of doing that. Put another way, my reasons for not wanting this appointment are just as emotional and nought to do with economics.
Bravo. This is a great argument for the romantics. But it is flawed: not all who are arguing against the idea of Giggs are thinking like accountants. I am against it because to me it has a high probability of failing; that means United losing, being beaten. I support United and I hate it when we lose. I'm not really bothered about the bottom line (though I understand in theoretical manner its importance). I just want United to win matches; I'm against the idea of Giggs because I don't think he will give us the best chance of doing that. Put another way, my reasons for not wanting this appointment are just as emotional and nought to do with economics.
That is true. What you didn't mention though that Real, Barca and Bayern are a few levels above any EPL team. In terms of point, I would say that they would easily finish 10 points on average ahead of EPL champion. So, it isn't a surprise that the difference between first and third in those two leagues is more than in England. Not because the third, fourth or firth in England are stronger, but because the first and second in England are weaker than in Spain.
The EPL champions at the moment aren't even in the level of Atletico Madrid, let alone Real, Barca and Bayern. Obviously they will finish less points ahead of the third/fourth/fifth teams than Bayern, Barca and Madrid.
Last edited:
Why is it a lot unless if you think, deep down, that he hasn't got what it takes?
By common Caf standards everything has to be an explicit argument - a pro or a con for some specific idea or other. Everything has to be an opinion as to whether X is good or bad. And anything which seems not to be must definitely be so - only surreptitiously, which makes it all the blacker or whiter.
"It" is not flawed. Your interpretation of "it" is, however. Because "it" is not an argument at all. It's a point of view - or an angle, if you will, a way of looking at things.
If "it" had been an argument for the "romantics" in your interpretation it would have been flawed indeed - no question about it. But not even as such would it have been flawed in the particular sense you imply. Because this pseudo-argument (what you label an "argument") doesn't presuppose that "all who are arguing against the idea of Giggs are thinking like accountants". At best, or worst, "it" implies that thinking like an accountant is not natural for a football fan, but "it" certainly does not imply what you seem to think if you consider "it" to be an actual argument.
But then - again - if you consider "it" to be an "argument" you have misunderstood the nature of "it" and are, as such, in error to begin with.
Why would your prospective employers need to know you personally except if you are hoping to get the job on a nepotistic basis?
That's all true but, if I can speak like an "accountant" (I'm not in real life), I am genuinely worried about us dropping out of the top 4 and then having to fight back against two well-funded teams in our glamorous capital, Abu Dhabi next door and the sleeping giant 30 miles down the road who suddenly have an A list manager. That's where the comparison with Barcelona or Bayern ends (they have vastly more spending and pulling power than domestic rivals, Real Madrid excepted, and would continue to do so even if they appointed John Carver as manager) or with the United of 30 years ago (when there was no top 4 dividing line). After the Moyes trauma, I have no desire to see United used as a guinea pig again.
But we're talking about the competitiveness of the leagues, not the comparative strength between the teams across the leagues. That's irrelevant as far as what we're discussing is concerned. The quality of that Algerian league, where there was just 11 points separating top from bottom with just 4 games left, would have been incredibly low when compared to what Real, Barca and Bayern have to offer, but the league (at least that season) was clearly far more competitive.
The Premier League is far more competitive because there are ~3 to ~6 teams that are all reasonably close in ability, season to season. The same is simply not true in Spain and Germany.
But ultimately right, Ferguson lost all credibility (in recommending managers) when he identified Moyes as his successor or put his stamp of approval on the appointment. Like it or not that is the bottom line and the great man recognizes the damage it's done to his ability to influence things at United hence the chapter in his book distancing himself from that fiasco.
That's the risk you take when you certify something, surely in some part of your life you experience this especially at work - you give your boss a poorly researched report, make him look like a fool and cost the firm loads of money usually you are out on the kerb but if you have served the firm very well in the past they keep you on but sideline you. Why would you think it would be different for Fergie? In fact given how badly burnt the Glazers were by the Moyes debacle Fergie's endorsement is the last thing Giggs would want right now.
I see your general point but at best there is 4 teams reasonably close in PL and in the last 2 years the competitiveness have been bigger in Liga than in PL. In PL Chelsea and City were alone while the battle for the title in Spain was at least the matter of 2 to 3 teams.
The Atletico season was a complete one off. I have proven with actual real life figures that the PL is still the more competitive league. You have to literally ignore facts to claim otherwise.
Fergie has done a bit more than "serve the firm very well in the past". His ridiculous success, and work to help build the club into what it is, are the major reasons why 7th in the league was seen as such a huge disappointment. Backing Moyes shouldn't invalidate any future advice he might have for the club, whether it be about managers or not.
In reply to the 'thinking like an accountant' bit. I can say my objections to Giggs being appointed is less based on 'monetary' matters and more that I want what's best for our club. I want us to continue building and staying at the top or near to the top, and for me Giggs is not ideal (for the various reasons I've already mentioned). Where I defer to monetary matters - it is simply because you cannot get away from it. This is the reality - you need to earn to stay competitive in this league. Nowadays it is not so easy to separate on and off the field matters because they are intrinsically linked. So if i come across as an 'accountant' so be it. It doesn't mean I have no passion for my club - quite the opposite - or I wouldn't be arguing this matter so fiercely - much to the disgust of the pro-Giggs brigade
Isn't it fair to say that the average point distance between 1st and 5th in the Prem is less than La Liga/Bundesliga lately, because the top Prem teams have declined?
During 2006 to 2009(3 seasons)when the Prem was the best league in the world in terms of quality, the average point distance between 1st and 5th was 26. Compared to La Liga in the same spell, the average point distance is 19. For Bundesliga in the same time period, the average point distance is 16.
Using those numbers as proof that La Liga isn't competitive now is silly imo. Would anyone here say that the Premier League from 2006-2009 was less competitive than La Liga and Bundesliga? I doubt it.
During 2006 to 2009(3 seasons)when the Prem was the best league in the world in terms of quality, the average point distance between 1st and 5th was 26. Compared to La Liga in the same spell, the average point distance is 19. For Bundesliga in the same time period, the average point distance is 16.
Using those numbers as proof that La Liga isn't competitive now is silly imo. Would anyone here say that the Premier League from 2006-2009 was less competitive than La Liga and Bundesliga? I doubt it.
1. I don't because I don't believe Malcom raised a bunch of idiots.
2. I truly doubt the sincerity of those call because in Ferguson it's just the great man letting his sentiment rule his mind in old age whilst in LvG's case it's just a matter of an isolated boss keeping his well connected assistant sweet during his reign.
..or Giggs will be the next manager and those in the know within the club are preparing us supporters for it.
In regards to your first point, that may be true. Doesn't mean that the league isn't more competitive though.
The definition of competitive: relating to or characterized by competition
The definition of competition: the person or people over whom one is attempting to establish one's supremacy or superiority; the opposition
Essentially, having more competition (i.e. more teams that stay close points wise for more of the season) means the league is more competitive. There is very little in the way of competition for Bayern in Germany, and Barca and Real in Spain, hence, their respective leagues are less competitive than the Premier League.
I'm all for accepting that the Premier League is currently a weaker league in regards to how its top teams cope against the top teams of other nations. However, it's simply wrong to claim that it isn't a more competitive league than La Liga and the Bundesliga.
Seems very likely to me, despite so many on here refusing to accept it.
The fundamental point I was making remains; this idea that great players can't make great coaches is just plain wrong. Lots of sports are littered with examples of players successfully making the transition.
This isn't really relevant when we're discussing our future transfers, though. The fact is that we're a club that now spends massively, and has done so for the past couple of seasons. We did it back in the early 2000's with signings like Ferdinand and Veron, and we've been doing it again in the past couple of years: we've bought players like Di Maria, Mata, Fellaini and others for rather high prices. We've only just signed the most expensive teenager in world football a month or so ago. Whether we like the idea of it or not, if we want to return to the top then we'll be doing so as a club which spends massively. Any manager is going to need to be capable of doing well in the transfer market, whether that be Giggs or someone else.
The point I was making is absolutely applicable. Those against Giggs were arguing that great players rarely make great coaches. There are hundreds of examples across a range of sports.
My point about Ditka was he followed the exact same path Giggs is following; a stellar playing career, through to assistant coach and ultimately very successful coach.
Of course it is a different sport but those putting forward the thesis that great players can't be great managers are just plain wrong. I can continue to list examples to illustrate this point but really couldn't be bothered anymore. Those of you against Giggs have your minds made up, which is a pity.
You are right, the general point is correct for example in Rugby a lot of the managers and coaches are former good to exceptional players. But it's not because they were great players that they become great coaches it's because they were already acting like coaches while they were players, is that the case for Giggs?
Once again I'm not against the idea, I'm just not comfortable with the lack of information about him as a coach.
Well that's just mad. Most of us supporting a Giggs appointment are in the main doing so because he is s realistic candidate i.e. The current assistant boss.
I would argue that by doing his badges as a player he was already acting like a coach.
I don't think anyone would really dispute that at all. Most would accept that there have been great players who have been great coaches; examples include Cruyff and Beckenbauer, and even if they weren't legends to the same extent, players like Guardiola and Ancelotti had very good careers before going on to do incredibly well in management.
Not all good players do well in management, though. For every great player that succeeds, you'll get plenty who go into management and either fail, or do a decent job but don't make it to the top. Ominously (you could argue), some of Fergie's past greats are examples. Roy Keane, Steve Bruce, Mark Hughes, Bryan Robson, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and others I've probably forgotten about have gone into management.
In some cases (like Hughes, maybe Bruce, and Solskjaer pre-Cardiff), there are some decent managers in there, but I don't think anyone particularly would consider one of the aforementioned as ideal replacements for LVG. Despite the fact that the idea of appointing Giggs is gaining a lot of traction now.
If we're considering Giggs as manager, then it's not that ridiculous. Both are United legends during Fergie's era of success. Giggs is assistant manager, but all that really shows right now is that he's more interested in going into management than Cantona. If we're considering assistant management as a measure of being worthy of the United job, perhaps we should consider Mike Phelan, or Steve McClaren.
This is just a silly argument. I don't know what you do for a living. Are you a CFO for example? Do you sit on the board? Are you deputy MD? Because if you are then being promoted to CEO is not so far fetched. Giggs is ASSISTANT MANAGER of Man Utd. The idea of him being promoted shouldn't seem so utterly unbelievable to you. It's not like they are talking about giving the manager of the megastore the job of managing the team!!!
I don't agree with you. At all.
In what sense? If we're appointing Giggs because he has credentials as a club legend, then we should also be considering legendary figures like Eric Cantona. If we're appointing him on the basis that he has experience as assistant manager, then we should also be considering figures like Mike Phelan.
Phelan's also a legendary figure to be fair. Those shorts
He'd put an entirely new meaning into short tenures.
- Status