Why do most of Fergie's "disciples" fail as managers?

[stefan92]

Talented players in general tend to become bad managers. Jürgen Klopp once said something along the lines that he lacked the technical abilities to play professional football, so he needed to outsmart the other players on the pitch. This gives a player an understanding of the game that most talented players simply won't have, as they can rightfully rely on their skills.

There are a few exceptions to that, and I think it is no coincidence that such great player/managers like Beckenbauer, Cruyff in the past or Zidane and Guardiola today were organising their teams even as players.

So we are narrowing it down to players taking responsibility to lead and organise their teams, and then we need players who have this understanding intellectually and not intuitively, so that they can think about it and actually tell other players what to do and why to do it.

And as was said in the Keane thread for example, he might not even understand why he was that good, as he just had the intuition to do what he did.

And because he was not necessarily a great tactician I think SAF trusted and relied upon players who did their job intuitively, a player discussing small tactical details in depth would probably not have been a good fit, a player who was told roughly what to do and then was able to read the match and do the right thing fitted better.

 

[Foxbatt]

Just was thinking to make a similar thread.

I guess, it would be interesting to see if Fergie's disciples fail, or every great manager's disciple fail. Does anyone know how did the disciples of Michels pr Sacchi did? Cruyff had Guardiola, but how did his other disciples do?

My best guess is that the football evolves, which means that the best managers are those who change things rather than imitate their previous boss. Which makes the disciples of great managers miserably fail.

@devilish 's answer might be the best explanation. The best managers probably worked under different managers, and learned different styles, eventually creating their own. On the other hand, SAF's disciples typically only knew SAF (or maybe someone else, but not a top one). Interestingly, the most successful ones (I would say Blanc and Queiroz) actually were not SAF's disciples. They worked under him relatively late in their career, and were exposed to different styles etc.

Cruijff played under Michels. Ancelotti under Sacchi. Rijkard under Cruijff and he won La Liga, and won the CL. I am sure that some players who played for Trapattoni may have made as good managers. I do not think that most great players make it out as top managers. Only a few did. SAF was an ordinary player. I can't remember too many great players becoming great managers. I remember Van Basten saying that it was difficult to play for Cruijff because he expects players to do things they are not able to do and he kept reminding him that not every player is as good as Cruijff.

 

[sullydnl]

Yeah that’s a much better question. Maybe Pep and Enrique once played under the same manager? And it’s not as though Enrique is an undisputed great.

Although is is definitely possible that the best managers around generally didn’t play at a very high level. That seems to be a bit of a recurring theme?

Plus he also happened to manage the likes of Messi, Iniesta, etc. in or around their prime, just as Pep did. I would guess the odds of any group of managers making it at the top level would increase if you let them share those players.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Who would the comparison point be? As in which manager has had a lot of successful managers of the future play under him? One of the Barca managers maybe?

If so my immediate thought would be that there was culturally and structurally less emphasis within the club on formalised tactical and stylistic considerations than there was at a club like Barca. If you're molded as a footballer within clubs that place greater emphasis on that then presumably that will shape your development as a manager.

Or to put it a different way, SAF was an extremely exceptional manager. And if most people try to manage in a style that emulates his, they will likely fail by dint of not being the exceptional person that he was. Whereas there are probably other less-exceptional but still top-level managers whose style and strong points would be easier to emulate.

I think this is a very good question and key to this discussion. If you examine it, I’m not aware of any great manager who had lots of players play under him that also went on to be great managers. At the most you might get one or two guys. Cruyff had Guardiola, Paisley had Dalglish etc. There are less managers than players and the number of elite people amongst that managerial group is vanishingly small.

I think you are right in saying that this rare passing of the torch from elite to elite is more likely to happen with clubs where they have a certain ethos or tactical philosophy that gets taught to everyone there and passed down from team to team and coach to coach. I think Liverpool and Barca have this more than United. United’s model is more: appoint an extraordinary individual who will be there for 20+ years and have lots of success and then when he leaves the club will struggle to replace him. It’s been that way for the last 70 years anyway.

 

[JebelSherif]

To be fair I haven't read all the posts, but when I saw the title: why do most of fergies disciples fail as managers? one thought sprung to mind: how many Managers these days at any PL club (let alone one expected to win things and win things often) gets four years of zilch, before they start to become successful? The answer is none - they would be sacked within 2 years, maximum.

 

[Foxbatt]

Antonio Conte also played under Trapattoni and Lippi.

 

[tjb]

I've wondered this. Remember how people used to complain how Sir Alex was lost in Europe? That he couldn't compete against the big club in the CL?
Seems like there was a lot of winning playing 4-4-2 while in England and just overrunning the other teams (who also played 442) because we had all the best players in the league. Not so much tactics. Not too much to learn.
Plus the English players don't go to other leagues usually, to see other ways to play. Now those other ways to play are here, and they can't cope.
I still don't understand why they can't learn. Try the different ways to play on the U16 team or something.

Fergie was far better tactically than people like to say. All his teams played quite differently across his time here. The 442 he used in 99 was a wide 4312 variation. Different to the almost 4231 he used in 94 or the interchangeable 442 he used in the rooney Ronaldo Era. It's why he could win with O'shea and Brown in weird positions or beat arsenal with 7 defenders. He was a fantastic man manager, but he also had great tactics. Tactics different to some other European managers, but for me, better and clearly more consistent. Looking down on that aspect, even if some of it was delegated, is part of the reason his ex players may be failing.

 

[caid]

Peoples bar for success or failure with football managers is broken. Bruce managing in the premier league for a decade or so is an outstanding success. Do a good job for 2 years and come unstuck for 6 months and you're seen as a failure who should never work again.
Its a job with a high turnover and we aren't looking for a successful manager - were looking for the best manager in world football which is quite different.

 

[Skills]

Fergie was far better tactically than people like to say. All his teams played quite differently across his time here. The 442 he used in 99 was a wide 4312 variation. Different to the almost 4231 he used in 94 or the interchangeable 442 he used in the rooney Ronaldo Era. It's why he could win with O'shea and Brown in weird positions or beat arsenal with 7 defenders. He was a fantastic man manager, but he also had great tactics. Tactics different to some other European managers, but for me, better and clearly more consistent. Looking down on that aspect, even if some of it was delegated, is part of the reason his ex players may be failing.

It's worth noting Fergie only delegated at the end of his career. It was at the stage where he knew exactly what he wanted, had worked with said coaches for years & trusted them enough to teach the players his vision and ideas. He did all the hands on stuff before & gained enough confidence in his coaches before he delegated. Even Quieroz had 2 stints at the club and was more influential in his second stint than his first one (why Roy Keane fell out with him).

 

[acnumber9]

Most managers fail in general. It would be an exception for them to be good.

 

[tjb]

They are trying to implement tactics that worked in 10-20 years ago. The modern game has moved on from what worked during Fergie's time. They also don't have the motivational, man-management skills nor ability to understand squad rotation. Ole, for example, is trying to manage an outdated style as a Fergie clone when he possesses a fraction of the skill Fergie had and has no idea how to adapt to the modern game.

I think his tactics would still work, just in a different variation, which they don't have the capacity to figure out. It's like the 3 at the back formation. Alot of managers are trying to copy it because they've seen it succeed with Conte or Tuchel. But those managers understand what they want from the tactic and how to implement it, which is why they succeed with it. Whilst others copy it and get pushed back to their own box. The 442 is similar too. There were instances where managers would just like any 2 strikers up and expect it to work. Yet the better managers understood that having a more creating or stronger player holding the ball up or creating for the 9 was a better like for the attack. Yet the British press would still compare both strikers on their goalscoring.
In essence, because you know of something doesn't mean that you know how to implement it. Pirlo wanted to ve Guardiola at Juve, yet clearly his training and tactical understanding was not sufficient enough to show on the pitch.

 

[Abraxas]

I think it's a lot to do with the cut throat nature of football. In terms of top level management there are very few that do in fact have stellar reputations. It's also far easier to damage a reputation than to keep one intact due to the lack of patience in football.

Really people like Giggs and Keane have done okay, certainly for periods. Bruce has had a solid career. The chances one will become the absolute best just because they played under Ferguson is unlikely, the top managers are like world class talents - the top fraction of a percent of people. It's also a completely different skill with only a few areas of crossover to being a player which is why there isn't huge correlation.

 

[RedorDead21]

Because If you listen to SAFs team talks etc it’s all pretty Sunday league stuff only it’s coming from one of the best man motivators ever in sport. His imposing personality, where he was from, everything about him basically was individual and just can’t be copied like a tacticians approach. You could book learn the special ones approach, as that’s pretty much how he learnt himself…not so easy with SAF.

 

[Lentwood]

I think you have to acknowledge that SAF was from a different era, and by his own admission, SAF was never overly bothered about coaching or incredible tactical insights. The reason SAF was so successful was because he was a genuine 'manager, at a time when football clubs were still really totally reliant on the manager to run the footballing-side of the organisation. SAF was almost acting as what you would now consider a Director of Football, with the obvious difference being he was picking the team/in the changing room too. It was largely left to the likes of Quieroz, McClaren and Bryan Kidd to look after training/coaching.

Point being, I don't think you can compare SAF with someone like Pep or Klopp. They are what I would consider 'head coaches'. SAF was a 'manager'. Pep and Klopp have strong ideas about how the game should be played and I am sure they analyse the game in excruciating detail to ensure their instructions and ideas are coached into the players down to the letter. Therefore, players that played under Pep and Klopp would surely have these ideas passed on to them. You could almost say the same about 'head coaches' like LvG and Ralf Ragnik, who inspired other great 'coaches'.

What great tactical or coaching insights would you get from SAF? Nothing really. There was very little to it most of the time. What exactly would one of his ex-players learn, specifically about coaching and tactics, from him? I am sure they could learn plenty about man management and running a football club...but the intricacies of coaching a high-press/high-line into a team wanting to play aggressive, possession-based football...I am not so sure.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

It’s because Fergie was the pinnacle of the PREVIOUS era, not the current one.

He was the zenith of the 442, pre-stat, pre sport-science era.

He was the full-stop of a previous chapter.

Trying to replicate what he did would be like forming a band and using the same chords, clothes, instruments and recording techniques that The Beatles used and expecting it to become a youth culture phenomenon now…

Fergie’s players were immersed in a culture that is no longer relevant within elite football, and thus, as managers they are all somewhat anachronistic.

Worse though, is that Man Utd itself is still so ingrained within an outdated way of functioning that it is literally falling apart.

 

[The Brown Bull]

I think you have to acknowledge that, by his own admission, SAF was never overly bothered about coaching or incredible tactical insights. The reason SAF was so successful was because he was a genuine 'manager, at a time when football clubs were still really totally reliant on the manager to run the footballing-side of the organisation. SAF was almost acting as what you would now consider a Director of Football, with the obvious difference being he was picking the team/in the changing room too. It was largely left to the likes of Quieroz, McClaren and Bryan Kidd to look after training/coaching.

Point being, I don't think you can compare SAF with someone like Pep or Klopp. They are what I would consider 'head coaches'. SAF was a 'manager'. Pep and Klopp have strong ideas about how the game should be played and I am sure they analyse the game in excruciating detail to ensure their instructions and ideas are coached into the players down to the letter. Therefore, players that played under Pep and Klopp would surely have these ideas passed on to them. You could almost say the same about 'head coaches' like LvG and Ralf Ragnik, who inspired other great 'coaches'.

What great tactical or coaching insights would you get from SAF? Nothing really. There was very little to it most of the time. What exactly would one of his ex-players learn, specifically about coaching and tactics, from him? I am sure they could learn plenty about man management and running a football club...but the intricacies of coaching a high-press/high-line into a team wanting to play aggressive, possession-based football...I am not so sure.

This.
SAF was a lot like Busby in that way.I don’t mean it as a criticism , both men were giants of the game.
Managing is a tough gig.

 

[Borys]

I think it would be much more interesting to understand the patterns behind managers who are fairly successful. As already stated, most managers fail so I don't see anything extraordinary with United.

It would also bo interesting to take a look at managers from EPL working on the continent.

 

[frostbite]

I think it is two separate questions.

1. Why so many have tried?

The answer is Ferguson. He had a lot of contacts, he could call other people and recommend his players as managers. So, they had a higher probability to get a job as managers.

2. Why most of them failed?

Because most of them fail anyway. If you pick 12 ex-players from Spurs or Chelsea, how many are top managers today? Exactly! The same is true for ex-players from Man Utd. Our players are not better managers (or worse!) than ex-players from any other team.


So, actually the difference is question number one. We have so many players that tried to become managers only because they knew that SAF will help them start somewhere. SAF had the most contacts in English football, so it makes sense.

 

[Vaultech]

Many of Fergie's disciplines have a sense of arrogance about football tactics. How many of them are said to be tactically astute at the highest level? How many of them can build a team to dominate others in most matches tactically?

Fergie himself didn't pay that much attention to tactics in comparison to many other great managers of his era. Tactics do matter, but he relies on his management of players to perform in most matches. Then again, the fact that he only manages to win 2 CL despite his longevity is also an indication that he gets "out-coached" in many European football matches.

Towards the end of Ferguson's reign, you start to see he is starting to get left behind in terms of football tactics. Yes, he was able to win another PL title in his final season in charge, but that season relies heavily on Van Persie in the form of his life and scoring for fun. Go back to the threads back then and you have dozens of threads about zombie football and how United always seem to have issues in the midfield. Ferguson was almost stubborn in refusing to sign to top midfielder, despite the fact that his midfield gets overrun by the likes of Barca, Bilibao and many other top European teams again and again. In a period where midfield becomes one of the most important part of a team, Manchester United was getting left behind by almost every major club out there.

The rise of Barca saw the importance of specialised passing midfielders in the likes of Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta. Yes, Carrick was a passing midfielder, but he is not anywhere close to the levels of other top midfielders of his generation. Even English media began to pick up on the likes of a number 6, or a number 8 as position in football. Everyone was moving away from the bog-standard 4-4-2 as a formation at the start of 2010s.

With the arrival of the likes of Klopp and Pep to the PL, the expectations and levels required to win a PL became much higher than ever. Going up against a Man City team requires you to earn close to a 100 points just to secure the title. It requires the top teams to totally dominate the lesser teams. It's not surprising that the likes of Ole simply can't win against those managers. Ole was talking badly and almost mocking others for thinking about midfielders as a number 6 or a number 8. That itself really highlights just how little atttention most of United's players under Fergie thinks about football tactics.

TLDR: Fergie's players inherited Fergie's lack of interest in detailed football tactical thinking, and they were getting left out of the pressing-positional football revolution that took place in the 2010s onwards.

 

[Abraxas]

I think you have to acknowledge that SAF was from a different era, and by his own admission, SAF was never overly bothered about coaching or incredible tactical insights. The reason SAF was so successful was because he was a genuine 'manager, at a time when football clubs were still really totally reliant on the manager to run the footballing-side of the organisation. SAF was almost acting as what you would now consider a Director of Football, with the obvious difference being he was picking the team/in the changing room too. It was largely left to the likes of Quieroz, McClaren and Bryan Kidd to look after training/coaching.

Point being, I don't think you can compare SAF with someone like Pep or Klopp. They are what I would consider 'head coaches'. SAF was a 'manager'. Pep and Klopp have strong ideas about how the game should be played and I am sure they analyse the game in excruciating detail to ensure their instructions and ideas are coached into the players down to the letter. Therefore, players that played under Pep and Klopp would surely have these ideas passed on to them. You could almost say the same about 'head coaches' like LvG and Ralf Ragnik, who inspired other great 'coaches'.

What great tactical or coaching insights would you get from SAF? Nothing really. There was very little to it most of the time. What exactly would one of his ex-players learn, specifically about coaching and tactics, from him? I am sure they could learn plenty about man management and running a football club...but the intricacies of coaching a high-press/high-line into a team wanting to play aggressive, possession-based football...I am not so sure.

To me this perspective on Ferguson has never made much sense. What do you mean that there was "not much to it" in terms of tactics? There had to be, otherwise anybody that was a good motivator and able to make some good transfers would have been a roaring success. He wasn't just a success he was vastly superior.

It's far too reductive in my opinion because to be able to adapt to different stages in football and produce winning sides he simply must have been extremely adept in his analysis. He had to understand them and get ahead of them and he not only did that but did it many times.

Also, it can't all have been coaches or even largely attributable to them in my opinion. I think there's a difference in giving staff responsibility, trusting them etc and them gaining full credit for it. They'd be on their way to being brilliant managers themselves if they were so good that they defined Manchester United's tactics during this period. The reality is he went through many assistants of varying quality but he is the common denominator. Of course they contributed, sometimes heavily.

To me it's farfetched to think he was anything other than a brilliant tactician. He had brilliant one off game plans, he could deploy players creatively in a way that looked strange on a team sheet but simply worked, and he did it over different eras of football. I don't see how there could be any more evidence for him being brilliant in this regard, I don't think waffling about pressing or passing triangles aids any analysis.

 

[Dansk]

Most people never make it big as managers. Only a tiny percentage of those who try their hand at it ever go on to actually win anything of note. It's not that Fergie's former players are unusually bad managers; if anything, it's that an unusually large number of his players decided to try management, which is no surprise after they worked under the greatest manager ever. He will obviously have inspired them to try it for themselves. And since those who played under Fergie were generally big-name players who still get media attention, they're more visible than the likes of Dean Smith and Graham Potter. If you look at all the PL players who went on to become managers, almost none have had serious success with it.

 

[Scholsey2004]

Because we were never a tactically or technically brilliant side and we never really pushed much in the way of off the field personal development like some sides do. If you grew up at a club like Barca where there were complex systems and heavy technical skills development then youre likely to have a greater knowledge base and experience of progressive coaching techniques than if you grew up at United. We literally brought in Quiroz because Ferguson wanted to update the tactical approach which was outdated to the extent we struggled to find mature players for our system.

If the club are determined to keep Solskjaer then we really need to consider bringing in a more progressive assistant manager or director of football like we did with Quiroz so that the tactical aproach and skills training can be updated as we appear to be playing catch up again more than ever and this time we wouldnt run the risk of breaking a winning formula as we arent winning anyway.

 

[Greck]

A lot of them didn't learn tactical brilliance from Fergie, instead they sought to emulate his man management genius which turns out can't be emulated at the highest level. There are a lot of silent personality traits and intangibles that go into it. This also isn't to say SAF wasn't tactically astute. I never saw a manager with a better knack for game changing subs plus his tactical preferences were a product of their time.

Edit: It's also true most managers fail but how many shared a dressing room for 10 years with the greatest? He was at the club for 20 years, how do we not have a single one blossom into a great manager? That's where I think the thread (and my 1st paragraph) is trying to answer. Also whether it really helped them as much as we think.

 

[Still ill]

Most managers fail full stop.

 

[tjb]

To me this perspective on Ferguson has never made much sense. What do you mean that there was "not much to it" in terms of tactics? There had to be, otherwise anybody that was a good motivator and able to make some good transfers would have been a roaring success. He wasn't just a success he was vastly superior.

It's far too reductive in my opinion because to be able to adapt to different stages in football and produce winning sides he simply must have been extremely adept in his analysis. He had to understand them and get ahead of them and he not only did that but did it many times.

Also, it can't all have been coaches or even largely attributable to them in my opinion. I think there's a difference in giving staff responsibility, trusting them etc and them gaining full credit for it. They'd be on their way to being brilliant managers themselves if they were so good that they defined Manchester United's tactics during this period. The reality is he went through many assistants of varying quality but he is the common denominator. Of course they contributed, sometimes heavily.

To me it's farfetched to think he was anything other than a brilliant tactician. He had brilliant one off game plans, he could deploy players creatively in a way that looked strange on a team sheet but simply worked, and he did it over different eras of football. I don't see how there could be any more evidence for him being brilliant in this regard, I don't think waffling about pressing or passing triangles aids any analysis.

Exactly. It's a really irritating theme. He gave his players the platform to express themselves through the solidity of his tactics. He wasn't Pep or Klopp who visibly micromanage; but that's not to say he wasn't a fantastic tactician. The way our players were able to move the ball quickly from side to side, with continuous incessant pressure. The combination plays of the strikers. Out ability to create space for our wingers to consistently have space to operate ( something we are currently struggling with). Watch his teams and in comparison to others, regardless of iteration, we always played differently. The truth to me in regard to this, is as much as Fergie himself wasn't one to talk tactics to the press, the idea of him not being a great tactician might be due to him being British. Despite having tactics and displaying them even in single game situations, constantly highlighted in our late game flurries, it's not seen as tactical for some reason.

 

[Womp]

Cause they aren't very good managers. They've learnt things from SAF sure, but the game has changed since then. SAF's greatest asset was his ability to adapt

 

[JebelSherif]

I assume when you say fergies disciples, you mean ex-players from say the Class Of 92?

Or would you include David Moyes, as a disciple?

 

[united_99]

The myth is still going on that SAF was successful over 3 decades with excellent man management skills and hardly any tactics. Then why did other good (British or foreign) man managers didn‘t succeed?

I could even understand it if he regularly had players like Zidane or Batistuta who got to play under great Dutch or Italian tacticians before and were then gifted to SAF to reap the rewards.

Whereas in reality apart from RvP and Veron I can hardly think of any other world class player in their prime we had bought under him. The vast majority of our great players either came through our youth system or were bought when they were relatively young or inexperienced at top level. Then his title winning teams also regularly had mediocre players with specific jobs on the pitch.
Sure, he didn‘t have the same tactical reputation as prime Benitez or Mourinho but they themselves have „only“ won 1 and 2 CLs. Whereas Ancelotti who many don‘t see as great tactician for whatever reason has won 3.
Tactical genius Conte has zero (he still has enough time to win it though) and coaching guru LvG has 1.
Yes SAF wasn‘t the one who innovated tactics or reintroduced it as one of the first. He also took some time and failings to change what he was used to (didn’t give up naive attacking football in Europe until 2007). However he mostly found ways to get there eventually. But that hardly makes him an average tactician.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Giggsy was a great manager:

Managed to bone his brother's missus.

 

[adexkola]

most managers fail. /thread.

How did it take so long for someone to mention the correct answer?

 

[Lost bear]

To be fair I haven't read all the posts, but when I saw the title: why do most of fergies disciples fail as managers? one thought sprung to mind: how many Managers these days at any PL club (let alone one expected to win things and win things often) gets four years of zilch, before they start to become successful? The answer is none - they would be sacked within 2 years, maximum.

I can think of one though...ahem.

 

[el3mel]

They didn't learn anything from Ferguson. They all think they can win via passion and United way. They all seem to think that's how Ferguson used to win and try to implement the same.

 

[Lentwood]

To me this perspective on Ferguson has never made much sense. What do you mean that there was "not much to it" in terms of tactics? There had to be, otherwise anybody that was a good motivator and able to make some good transfers would have been a roaring success. He wasn't just a success he was vastly superior.

It's far too reductive in my opinion because to be able to adapt to different stages in football and produce winning sides he simply must have been extremely adept in his analysis. He had to understand them and get ahead of them and he not only did that but did it many times.

Also, it can't all have been coaches or even largely attributable to them in my opinion. I think there's a difference in giving staff responsibility, trusting them etc and them gaining full credit for it. They'd be on their way to being brilliant managers themselves if they were so good that they defined Manchester United's tactics during this period. The reality is he went through many assistants of varying quality but he is the common denominator. Of course they contributed, sometimes heavily.

To me it's farfetched to think he was anything other than a brilliant tactician. He had brilliant one off game plans, he could deploy players creatively in a way that looked strange on a team sheet but simply worked, and he did it over different eras of football. I don't see how there could be any more evidence for him being brilliant in this regard, I don't think waffling about pressing or passing triangles aids any analysis.

Have you ever found even one interview where SAF talks about some kind of detailed tactical plan or even style? The closest I can find is the odd time a player says something like 'Sir Alex asked Park Ji-Sung to man-mark Andrea Pirlo"

I'm not trying to knock SAF here, I happen to think SAF is very much like one of the other all-time great managers, Brian Clough. Both were charismatic, brilliant communicators, excellent at uniting and motivating players and ran their clubs from top to bottom. The other thing they had in common is a heavy reliance on a trusted Assistant Manager to do most of the day-to-day tactics and coaching.

Going back to my earlier point...football is completely different now. Remember when Jose came into the PL and dominated, for a couple of seasons, basically by popularising the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3, essentially ensuring they dominated the midfield battle against teams still playing 4-4-2 with attacking wingers? SAF adapted, with the help of Carlos Quieroz, and before long we regularly played 4-3-3 in big games. Then Pep came along, and the game changed again. United couldn't lay a glove on Pep's Barcelona in two Champions League finals. Simply putting that extra man in midfield was now no longer enough. The game had moved on again and I think it was a bridge too far for SAF in the twilight of his career.

It's pointless really, trying to compare coaches/players from one era to another, but specifically in the context of answering this question, I think it does hint at why none of SAFs ex-players have become great managers. SAF was from a different era, back when "tactics" was basically one or two basic ideas and the rigid formation you started the game with. It was amazing really that SAF was as successful as he was for as long as he was, and I think that is partly due to choosing good assistants/coaches and partly because the English game was perhaps tactically behind the Spanish/German/Dutch/Italian game for a while.

You can see it in Ole, he is completely at a loss as to why what worked for SAF in 1999 isn't working for him in 2021. His ideas about the game seem so basic, so old-fashioned.

 

[united_99]

Have you ever found even one interview where SAF talks about some kind of detailed tactical plan or even style? The closest I can find is the odd time a player says something like 'Sir Alex asked Park Ji-Sung to man-mark Andrea Pirlo"

I'm not trying to knock SAF here, I happen to think SAF is very much like one of the other all-time great managers, Brian Clough. Both were charismatic, brilliant communicators, excellent at uniting and motivating players and ran their clubs from top to bottom. The other thing they had in common is a heavy reliance on a trusted Assistant Manager to do most of the day-to-day tactics and coaching.

Going back to my earlier point...football is completely different now. Remember when Jose came into the PL and dominated, for a couple of seasons, basically by popularising the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3, essentially ensuring they dominated the midfield battle against teams still playing 4-4-2 with attacking wingers? SAF adapted, with the help of Carlos Quieroz, and before long we regularly played 4-3-3 in big games. Then Pep came along, and the game changed again. United couldn't lay a glove on Pep's Barcelona in two Champions League finals. Simply putting that extra man in midfield was now no longer enough. The game had moved on again and I think it was a bridge too far for SAF in the twilight of his career.

It's pointless really, trying to compare coaches/players from one era to another, but specifically in the context of answering this question, I think it does hint at why none of SAFs ex-players have become great managers. SAF was from a different era, back when "tactics" was basically one or two basic ideas and the rigid formation you started the game with. It was amazing really that SAF was as successful as he was for as long as he was, and I think that is partly due to choosing good assistants/coaches and partly because the English game was perhaps tactically behind the Spanish/German/Dutch/Italian game for a while.

You can see it in Ole, he is completely at a loss as to why what worked for SAF in 1999 isn't working for him in 2021. His ideas about the game seem so basic, so old-fashioned.

SAF got his tactics wrong in both finals, however in 2011 our team was also not that good anymore. It happens, same way Pep got it wrong in the CL final against Tuchel.
10-men Chelsea with Di Matteo could deal with Pep‘s Barca. Mourinho‘s Inter beat them. Whereas we could deal with Chelsea and beat Mourinho‘s Inter in 2009 but got it completely wrong against Barca.
Then all this assistant talk when none of SAF‘s assistants were successful managers before or after working with him.

 

[tjb]

SAF got his tactics wrong in both finals, however in 2011 our team was also not that good anymore. It happens, same way Pep got it wrong in the CL final against Tuchel.
10-men Chelsea with Di Matteo could deal with Pep‘s Barca. Mourinho‘s Inter beat them. Whereas we could deal with Chelsea and beat Mourinho‘s Inter in 2009 but got it completely wrong against Barca.
Then all this assistant talk when none of SAF‘s assistants were successful managers before or after working with him.

Ironically Zidane, Ancelotti, Heynkes all being succesful shows that highly detailed coaching isn't a requisite. Furthermore, it's not like there weren't people seen as tacticians in the 90s or 2000s. The trappatoni's, capella, lvg's all were there. Cruyff was there in fergie's early United dominance.

 

[Tom Cato]

There are what, 15 active managers in the world that are good enough to win a Premier League trophy? There are 100 aspiring coaches for every 1 that lifts a major league trophy. The answer is more likely than not "Chance"

 

[LawmanMan]

Some right tripe on here. Fergie never knew about tactics? The man is a walking football encyclopedia!

Many of the so-called "disciples" were not even mentored by Ferguson. He did mentor Moyes, and he mentored Alex McLeish. They both had pretty good careers, and both share the sort of independent mentality that Ferguson had. Ferguson could advise young coaches, but at the end of the day a lot of it is innate talent.

That said, I think he was most keen on helping his countrymen, much like Jock Stein did with him. I doubt he spent much time advising Roy Keane or Strachan, given how bad their relationships were.

 

[Rood]

Trying to move away from an Ole thread (whilst still sort of being an Ole thread)... a great number of Fergie's players (and assistants) have gone onto become managers, and almost all have either been a) total failures, or b) seen as a bit of a joke...

Some like Robson, Hughes and Keane achieved early success, but it all fell apart pretty quickly after... and others like Jaap Stam, Berg, Forlan, Sheringham etc never saw any success. Then you've got the jokes like Phil and Gary Neville, Paul Ince, Scholes (if that even counts)... I'm sure there's more?

Phelan and Brian Kidd were terrible when they made the step up to management, I think Mulesteen was too?

On the better side, Brucey has managed over 1000 games, but has never really been loved anywhere and doesn't have a great reputation. Strachan had a a decent career too without being anything extraordinary. Elsewhere there's also Blanc who is currently off coaching in the middle east, and Quieroz is Egypt manager - both have reputations of sorts, but neither in great jobs

So is there an actual reason, or is it just a coincidence, coupled with the fact that most managers end up as either failures or a joke? Is it something to do with SAF himself and his greatness and not being able to live up to it?

Ye I always assumed one of them would follow Fergie, I think some made bad career choices and could have succeeded

Robson started well but stayed too long at Boro - it's well known he was even offered the England job when Keegan took it but declined as he thought it was too early in his managerial career

I think G Neville could have been a good manager but taking the Valencia job was idiotic, doomed to failure

Giggs still had potential but who knows where his career goes now

There is even a whole list of others from Aberdeen like McLeish and McGee

 

[VanHaal'sRedArmy]

Managing players isn't the same as it used to be. If you try to follow the model of your predecessors without adapting to modern tactics, sports science, and training - you're simply bound to fail. Managers who were brought up from lower divisions and through the ladder have had more success than managers who were appointed on strength of their professional network alone rather than merit.

 

[the chameleon]

Fergie was more a CEO that delegated multiple aspects. He knew how to build and run a well-oiled machine. He understood the bigger picture from tea lady, youth coaches, tactics, team play, man-management etc. He saw the bigger the picture, was ruthless and able to adapt to different situations. This is why he lasted so long and saw off different types of threats. If he was coach, he would have found a way to see of these city and Liverpool sides too by hiring the right team.

The thing is you can't teach this type of thing to other people. It's exceptional. If he wasn't a football manager, he would easily have been a CEO in any field he chose and done well.

Whereas people like Cruyff and Rinus Michels were specialist in a particular football methodology which has seen many students go onto become great coaches the biggest being Pep. This is the same with Bielsa who also has had different people become successful under him. These coaches have an off-the-shelf template that can be replicated with varying levels of success by different coaches.

This is probably one of the big reasons.