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

[Raees]

Fergie ‘babied’ a lot of his players from a tactical perspective. He understood the psyche of the British player very well and the foreign successes he did sign tended to fit the existing mould of being tough with a maverick element and players who could think for themselves on the pitch. There wasn’t really any deep underlying philosophy underpinning it all - well not something you can really pass on in terms of theory to future generations.

Furthermore he ruled with such an iron fist, he didn’t really cultivate players who really thought deeply about the game and questioned his tactics. Plus he was so successful that they probably didn’t feel the need to investigate anything further than what they already knew.

Cruyff was a once in a generation icon who thought about football in mathematical terms and thus he and the Dutch generation that played with or under him, they saw the game in a completely different way and the Spanish game was deeply influenced by this. The Italian game has always been tactical in nature from the outset and the German too in some respects but after the failures of the late 90s there was a introspective movement which led to a new approach to football and a new generation of coaches.

We live on an island where that sort of thinking has never really been encouraged and seeing as most of Fergie players come through 80s/90s it is no surprise that they’ve been cocooned from modern football thought and things like data analytics, pressing, possession etc. They’re all a bunch of dinosaurs.

None of Liverpool’s old guard would be able to handle it either so it’s not just a United thing - someone like Gerrard is of a more modern generation of player than the United lot and has played under managers such as Benitez and Rodgers - so he will have a better tactical grasp of the game but will he have a level of learning that we expect from the likes of Tuchel? Seems doubtful but he will be a cut above the likes of Ole most likely.

 

[TJ Reid]

Moyes was Fergie’s chosen one and Fergie left knowing the team was in decline. Whoever came next had a hell of a job. Moyes actually didn’t have a bad win record in his 8 months and given what he’s doing at West Ham one could hardly describe him as a failure

Martin Edwards stuck with Fergie when he had a rough patch 3 years in and fans wanted his head - you should have given Moyes longer

 

[Tincanalley]

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.

Close the thread. You just nailed it. Acceptance of this analysis is what is needed to start to fix the club, from fanbase to boardroom.

 

[CeKay]

Fergie himself was different type of manager, he built the whole system and club, he had the time and the circumstances and he wasn't tactical person.

 

[Trequarista10]

most managers fail. /thread.

Pretty much this.

Although I would change it to most managers "fail" in the eyes of fans of a top club, who see anything less than continued success at a top club as a failure. Most managers are at clubs where that simply isn't possible. Avoiding relegation, or a mid table finish is a good achievement in most managerial roles.

 

[Ferguson’s Hairdryer]

Football management has changed its now much much more about coaching and tactics.

I team like Man City signs some 18 year old from South America, the actual management to help him settle, make sure he’s happy, staying out of trouble, etc isn’t handled by Pep. It’s mostly handled by a different department.

The days of SAF turning up and breaking up a party that some of his young players are having are done. Now it’s the job of a player liaison department to know these things.

 

[Marwood]

most managers fail. /thread.

Pretty much this.

Although I would change it to most managers "fail" in the eyes of fans of a top club, who see anything less than continued success at a top club as a failure. Most managers are at clubs where that simply isn't possible. Avoiding relegation, or a mid table finish is a good achievement in most managerial roles.

Yeah agree. Ultimately most fail, that they played under SAF is neither here nor there.

Bruce and Hughes have had very good managerial careers. Even Keano and Robson have a had a couple of high moments.

Can't be just me that cringes a bit when folk start talking about philosophy and tactics? This idea the game has moved on so much that some of Fergie's old players don't understand it anymore? But these guys on Redcafe do.

Tactically Klopp isn't doing anything SAF didn't. He has a couple of players who can cross the ball really well. Clinical forwards. Grafters in midfield. Big strong top quality centre back. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Wheato]

Fergie had a real knack for signing good players. You could say that most of his first 11 were captain material. They were leaders on and off the pitch.

Declan Rice would be a good example of a modern day Fergie signing.

Although, being a winner on the pitch doesn't necessarily translate to being a good manager. Leadership is important, but you need to be a tactician, you need to be able to read the game, and do your homework in terms of learning about the opposition. It has often been said that Fergie had an encyclopaedic knowledge of players. Even in lower leagues. You couldn't really imagine Roy Keane the manager watching Crewe on a Wednesday night. But Fergie did that. He would fly out to Spain/Portugal/France on a Sunday afternoon to watch European opposition before we played them, and then he would still be first in at Carrington the following morning.

He was driven like a man possessed. It is hard to follow or emulate such dedicated and selfless lifestyle, because something has to give. And in Fergie's case, he never saw his family. His wife brought up the kids. Not many people are willing to sacrifice so much.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Being a good player individually, and a famous person doesn't make you an automatic great manager.

You can only get by using your name and an aura for so long - eventually you'll get found out and the players won't remain happy.

Some struggle with man management, some fail tactically.

 

[Patchbeard]

A lot of them played under one guy, who was the GOAT football manager, and know nothing else but his ways of working.

Compare that to Guardiola in his playing days, played under Cruyff, Robson and LVG.

And I don’t know what it is about British players/managers but they do not like playing abroad or managing abroad, unlike their European counterparts and therefore that’s why you see feck all from British managers. British players seem more at home making easy money on the pundit circuit.

Probably because we suck at other languages.

I never realised just how did Scholes was and how annoying Phil Neville was when they were players. Always thought Scholesy was a smart but quiet guy due to the way he stayed out of the press but was such a clever player. Turns out he's the thickest of the lot.

I do think Gary Neville could've been more of a success if he hadn't picked such an obscure role for his first gig.

And Roy Keane showed a lot of promise early on at Sunderland but turned out to be too stubborn and set in his ways to make it at the highest level.

 

[Lentwood]

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.

Good post. This is what I have ben trying to say, in a roundabout way.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Moyes was Fergie’s chosen one and Fergie left knowing the team was in decline. Whoever came next had a hell of a job. Moyes actually didn’t have a bad win record in his 8 months and given what he’s doing at West Ham one could hardly describe him as a failure

Martin Edwards stuck with Fergie when he had a rough patch 3 years in and fans wanted his head - you should have given Moyes longer

It doesn't matter which way you spin it. He left Moyes a title winning side and Moyes dragged them down to 7th. It was a declining squad yes but more than good enough to finish top four and it didn't help that we dithered on signings all summer. I'm pretty sure Fergie had signings in the pipeline before Moyes took over. He laid the groundwork for Thiago for example but Moyes turned him down and went for Fabregas which was an unrealistic target.

 

[Oranges038]

I think you should temper it by looking at what most managers achieve and compare them to Fergie. Look at all the other top teams around and look at how any their former players have faired in management.

Then compare any of his former players who have become managers to your average PL or League manager and other players who have gone into management.

And then you will realise that just because they weren't as great as some people expected or they never got close to the top, quite a few of them that have gone into management have actually done alrigh and have done way better than most. Even several few of his Aberdeen team have gone on to do alright for themselves.

 

[Ash_G]

There's obviously lots you can say about Fergie himself and his skill set as others have already mentioned.

One point though from the players perspective is that generally speaking I think they were higher quality players than Fergie was (although happy to be called out on this!) and I think it can sometimes be difficult for people to adapt to working with people not at their level/with their mindset. From my experience even if you take a normal workplace you often see people who were great at a certain level fail to step up as effectively to the next level. Again this can be for multiple reasons but sometimes it's because they don't know how to oversee others who don't operate in the manner they did and struggle to flex their style.

 

[stoinz]

Think most of his players have that grit, dedication and determination needed to succeed under him. I suspect too much stubbornness goes against what I think is Fergie's greatest strength as a manager, is the ability to renew and adapt. None of his disciples exhibited that.

 

[Kcocymkcus]

Because being a good player doesn't automatically make you a good manager.

If you look at it the other way round, you will often find that the best mangers were never actually good players.

Being able to play good football and being able to manage are two totally different things. You see this everywhere, even in business, some good workers around but stick them in a boss position and they are useless (I'm sure we all know someone like this) and football is no different.

 

[Zehner]

To be honest, I believe that Ferguson's way is outdated and his students try to replicate something that's not suited to the modern game anymore. Ferguson never struck me as a tactical innovator but rather an excellent squad builder, man manager and player developer. He's probably the best practice for the traditional British football manager but these days the job is more specialized. You need world class coaches not managers in these positions.

Obviously I can be wrong but I think if you listen to Neville, Solskjaer etc. it sort of supports this theory. They all seem very superficial and focused on bringing in the right players, having the motivation and hunger etc. They rarely speak about tactical details in the way Guardiola, Tuchel, Klopp, etc. do it.

 

[RedorDead21]

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.

is was Ancelotti right who kinda mockingly said “everyone knows how United play” before his Milan beat us. It was pretty much true. Doesn’t mean you could stop it. I think some of the tweaks SAF made like the tactics against Mourinho’s Madrid which basically made us look far superior over both legs until the Nani sending off showed how he could get the very best out of his perhaps basic tactics? He got far better by the end, it all started really when he’d change for Arsenal to put an extra body in the middle. For what seems like a decade we got beat in the Champs league by teams like panithanikos and galatasaray because said tweaks didn’t happen.

 

[Gawge]

I guess most managers fail. Very few actually rise to the top and remain successful. That's probably the main reason. I mean we say Bruce hasn't been successful, but without giving it too much thought I would suggest he is in the top 10 British managers of the last 20 years in terms of overall achievements - I'm not saying he's cutting edge, but there are only so many clubs and so many trophies.

To speculate on the point though, I feel like when you get someone like Fergie, especially when he was at a club for a quarter of a century, you build the perfect storm of institutional memory, power and confidence to keep the momentum going. I'm sure he developed almost a sense for what would work, who would work etc... which allowed Man Utd to compete often well above the sum of their parts. I think the style of management was waning in Fergie's last few years and he left at the perfect time, again showing his golden touch, but I'm not sure how sustainable it would be any more against these new intense and meticulous systems introduced in the last decade by the likes of Pep and Klopp.

So when you take everything you learn from Fergie, you both aren't as good as him, you don't have the golden touch honed through decades of success that influenced you, you don't know all the small things that made it all tick - and you are trying to replicate that approach in a different era.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

But so what? I think it's more of a modern fad to waffle on about formations, pressing, philosophies. All those things existed in some form before the last 5-10 years. Why is talking about it so crucial? I know perception can be reality and all that but I don't see how it's so important. What his teams did is the real test.

Of course times have changed, styles have changed. Nobody would deny that. But they also changed markedly over the course of Ferguson's career, and if the argument is that tactics developed from a fairly caveman approach in the early 90s..well then so did Fergie. It's not that crucial to the point of whether he's tactically adept. If Pep is still finding solutions in 15 years time then what does it matter if the football played has changed? It doesn't, not at all, it's simply an observation of fact that football develops, it doesn't imply that the manager is tactically inferior unless he fails to get results.

Also, yes we got battered by Barcelona and a few other times we struggled. They were a bloody good team and we got outclassed on the day. Maybe he even got outclassed tactically on that day. But individual performances are not as instructive as an entire body of work. I don't think it was this giant turning point, at the end of the day Fergie won until the very end and was becoming an old man, I think that's more crucial than pressing styles etc as to what became a bridge too far.

 

[Holocene]

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.

Great post. Your last point perfectly explains the problem at United currently. The worst thing about our current situation is that our two greatest rivals adapted a modern approach to football a decade ago.

 

[padzilla]

The same reasons Busby's disciples failed - they were disciples not leaders.

 

[Lentwood]

But so what? I think it's more of a modern fad to waffle on about formations, pressing, philosophies. All those things existed in some form before the last 5-10 years. Why is talking about it so crucial? I know perception can be reality and all that but I don't see how it's so important. What his teams did is the real test.

Of course times have changed, styles have changed. Nobody would deny that. But they also changed markedly over the course of Ferguson's career, and if the argument is that tactics developed from a fairly caveman approach in the early 90s..well then so did Fergie. It's not that crucial to the point of whether he's tactically adept. If Pep is still finding solutions in 15 years time then what does it matter if the football played has changed? It doesn't, not at all, it's simply an observation of fact that football develops, it doesn't imply that the manager is tactically inferior unless he fails to get results.

Also, yes we got battered by Barcelona and a few other times we struggled. They were a bloody good team and we got outclassed on the day. Maybe he even got outclassed tactically on that day. But individual performances are not as instructive as an entire body of work. I don't think it was this giant turning point, at the end of the day Fergie won until the very end and was becoming an old man, I think that's more crucial than pressing styles etc as to what became a bridge too far.

I'm not saying 'here is an article so I am right', but read this article...what I am saying is not an uncommon/unpopular opinion and there is loads of anecdotal evidence to back it up

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...nited-have-regressed-tactically-since-queiroz

Remember the point of the thread. Nobody is having a go at SAF for not talking about inverted full-backs and false 9s, that would be stupid, it would be likely having a go at Da Vinci for not inventing the iPod. It's just that stuff changes over time. SAF is, what, nearly 80? Therefore, his 'disciples' are likely to be late 40s/50s now...not hard to see why many of them struggle with modern football tactics at the very highest level...they are of a different time.

 

[Green_Red]

Define failure.

Why do Guardiolas disciples fail? Why do Mourinhos?

Ferguson was around a lot longer so naturally he has had more ex players and coaches go into management. It's an age thing too, Fergie is 80+, so naturally more of his "disciples" are out there. Why did Shanklys or Paisley's disciples fail so spectacularly?

These guys are their own men, they make their own decisions.

It doesn't matter who the teacher is, what's important is who the student is.

 

[united_99]

I'm not saying 'here is an article so I am right', but read this article...what I am saying is not an uncommon/unpopular opinion and there is loads of anecdotal evidence to back it up

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...nited-have-regressed-tactically-since-queiroz

Remember the point of the thread. Nobody is having a go at SAF for not talking about inverted full-backs and false 9s, that would be stupid, it would be likely having a go at Da Vinci for not inventing the iPod. It's just that stuff changes over time. SAF is, what, nearly 80? Therefore, his 'disciples' are likely to be late 40s/50s now...not hard to see why many of them struggle with modern football tactics at the very highest level...they are of a different time.

Queiroz himself keeps getting overrated.
Yes he was great for us and the changes he brought (including related to nutrition, fitness, etc.) were much needed but he keeps living off that one Barca tie.

This article also attributes everything good to him and overlooks bad periods.
We won as many league titles with him as we did after he left.

If SAF was around 60-65 years old in 2013 he would have brought in someone other than Queiroz to bring freshness and modernize our tactics again. He would have dictated how far the changes go and where they need to stop. He wouldn’t have changed everything, but would have found a good mix like he had always done.

But he was 71 in 2013 so of course another 3-5 years at the very top level were not for him.

Regarding Queiroz what is always being mentioned is how well he prepared us to stop Barca. It worked and well done.

However where was his influence when we were easily beaten by RM in 2002/03, Milan in 2004/05 and 2006/07 and were last in an easy CL group in 2005/06?

You see changes take time, even when Queiroz came - but more importantly Roman came and Arsenal improved and we had to catch up even domestically which took us a couple of years.

But we did it the right way and once we were there we stayed at the top again for a few years.

I see no reason why SAF if he was younger couldn’t do it again nowadays when even much worse and limited managers like Ole or Moyes have managed reasonable league finishes.

 

[choccy77]

Fergie had all the power at the club.

As soon as he won a few trophies and cemented the Title he became more than a manager.

No player was bigger than him and he even took the owners to court over his horses.

Other managers fail, simply because they lack what Fergie had which was a ruthlessness.

 

[roonster09]

Being successful manager is very tough, you need bit of everything to retain your job and you should be great at many attributes to win trophies at highest level.

Also going by past few decades, most of the successful managers are CMs, SAF spent most of his career with Keane, Scholes, Butt, Ince, Carrick as his CMs. So the chances are slim (It's a not a serious point btw), apart from all that it's an individual trait too.

 

[Stacks]

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?

Bruce is an established premier league manager. Hughes was in the premier league only 2 years ago. I regard that a success compared to most as they managed for a long time and still considered for the top league. Most deciples of ex great managers end up lower leagues.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Bruce is an established premier league manager. Hughes was in the premier league only 2 years ago. I regard that a success compared to most as they managed for a long time and still considered for the top league. Most deciples of ex great managers end up lower leagues.

I put Bruce in the "good" category along with Strachan. He has clearly been a very succesful manager - it's just he's reputation that isn't great - particular among fans of his ex-clubs.

I'm not sure on Hughes though - man got a lot of chances at clubs and didn't really do much save for at Blackburn.

He was at Stoke for something like 3/4 years and he didn't really move them on that much from the Pullis era.

 

[Lentwood]

Queiroz himself keeps getting overrated.
Yes he was great for us and the changes he brought (including related to nutrition, fitness, etc.) were much needed but he keeps living off that one Barca tie.

This article also attributes everything good to him and overlooks bad periods.
We won as many league titles with him as we did after he left.

If SAF was around 60-65 years old in 2013 he would have brought in someone other than Queiroz to bring freshness and modernize our tactics again. He would have dictated how far the changes go and where they need to stop. He wouldn’t have changed everything, but would have found a good mix like he had always done.

But he was 71 in 2013 so of course another 3-5 years at the very top level were not for him.

Regarding Queiroz what is always being mentioned is how well he prepared us to stop Barca. It worked and well done.

However where was his influence when we were easily beaten by RM in 2002/03, Milan in 2004/05 and 2006/07 and were last in an easy CL group in 2005/06?

You see changes take time, even when Queiroz came - but more importantly Roman came and Arsenal improved and we had to catch up even domestically which took us a couple of years.

But we did it the right way and once we were there we stayed at the top again for a few years.

I see no reason why SAF if he was younger couldn’t do it again nowadays when even much worse and limited managers like Ole or Moyes have managed reasonable league finishes.

You seem to be getting caught up in an argument nobody is having. The question is - why do most of Fergie's "disciples" fail as managers?

The answer some of us are giving is that a) SAF was from a simpler time, when tactics weren't as advanced, and therefore lessons learnt from him solely in relation to playing style/coaching may be non-transferable b) SAF was a 'manager' not a 'head coach' (like Pep/Klopp/Tuchel) and therefore never really cared for excruciating tactical details/planning and c) SAF left much of the coaching to Brian Kidd, Steve McLaren and Carlos Quieroz (something which ex-players/staff refer to regularly)

Some people are so caught up in the cult of SAF, they just blindly come out swinging without reading any of the discussion or seemingly even the thread title

 

[tjb]

is was Ancelotti right who kinda mockingly said “everyone knows how United play” before his Milan beat us. It was pretty much true. Doesn’t mean you could stop it. I think some of the tweaks SAF made like the tactics against Mourinho’s Madrid which basically made us look far superior over both legs until the Nani sending off showed how he could get the very best out of his perhaps basic tactics? He got far better by the end, it all started really when he’d change for Arsenal to put an extra body in the middle. For what seems like a decade we got beat in the Champs league by teams like panithanikos and galatasaray because said tweaks didn’t happen.

I think its very unfair to say that cause the Juve's and Madrid's with those coaches had similar records. All teams lost to those type of teams at points. Don't know why it's a stick Fergie only seems to get beaten with. From 99, he lost to real in 2000, Bayern in 2001, a lucky lederhosen in 2002, Madrid in 03, a lucky Porto in 04, Milan in 05 with our worst team, 06 was a travesty, Milan in 07 with injuries, won 08, lost a final in 09, an unlucky loss to Bayern in 2010 and Barca in 2011 final. I consider that the end of teams he had capable of winning the competition. Meanwhile the Wengers of this world were losing to Roma, Valencia etc

 

[RooneyLegend]

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).

Nope, Sir Alex delegated pretty much his whole United career. He simply had more important things to do than hang around the training field all the time. He, however, was just as great at finding coaching talent as he was at finding players.

 

[RedorDead21]

I think its very unfair to say that cause the Juve's and Madrid's with those coaches had similar records. All teams lost to those type of teams at points. Don't know why it's a stick Fergie only seems to get beaten with. From 99, he lost to real in 2000, Bayern in 2001, a lucky lederhosen in 2002, Madrid in 03, a lucky Porto in 04, Milan in 05 with our worst team, 06 was a travesty, Milan in 07 with injuries, won 08, lost a final in 09, an unlucky loss to Bayern in 2010 and Barca in 2011 final. I consider that the end of teams he had capable of winning the competition. Meanwhile the Wengers of this world were losing to Roma, Valencia etc

theres a lot of excuses here and I was talking
About the first 10 years in euro competition I remember so prob from from 1995 onwards. I’m not beating Fergie. I’m just saying tactically he was never regarded as up there by those up there. He was a motivational leader for me not really out thinking teams, simply buying the best players in the league and if anything upping their level again. All whist shouting things like “don’t let him f-ing past you” in team talks….

 

[RooneyLegend]

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.

Funny part is because of how great he was, he knew all of that was going to make a coaching change soon. He even asked to see a Pep coaching session after they waxed us. He could feel something was different with how these more modern teams were being coached.

 

[united_99]

You seem to be getting caught up in an argument nobody is having. The question is - why do most of Fergie's "disciples" fail as managers?

The answer some of us are giving is that a) SAF was from a simpler time, when tactics weren't as advanced, and therefore lessons learnt from him solely in relation to playing style/coaching may be non-transferable b) SAF was a 'manager' not a 'head coach' (like Pep/Klopp/Tuchel) and therefore never really cared for excruciating tactical details/planning and c) SAF left much of the coaching to Brian Kidd, Steve McLaren and Carlos Quieroz (something which ex-players/staff refer to regularly)

Some people are so caught up in the cult of SAF, they just blindly come out swinging without reading any of the discussion or seemingly even the thread title

No I am not getting into an argument no one is having, rather into an argument we are exactly having here.

You can paint it whatever way you want. For example if SAF left much of the coaching to his assistants, then still why did the former players not pick it up from them then? From Kidd, McClaren or Queiroz? So it wasn’t lessons learnt “from him solely in terms of playing style/coaching”, but rather from him and his different assistants/coaches.

And do you really believe Keane, Bruce and Co would have succeeded in previous eras? They did also manage in previous eras after all. Do you believe they would have won league titles with United against Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez or Mancini? Or would have achieved the same SAF did with Aberdeen?

Your main argument seems to be they are from a different/simpler era. Whereas my argument is they are just not good enough (like 99% of ex players) to manage in any era.

Also which simpler times? Times and conditions keep changing all the time. For everyone. They kept changing in the 30+ years SAF managed, too. LvG or Pep themselves have copied great managers from previous or “outdated” eras after all.

 

[Velvet Revolver]

Just because you were coached by the GOAT doesn't automatically make you a good manager. You may be a good student but that does not always translate into a good Master. Someone like Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce etc are not bad managers even though they were under SAF. it's about the path you forge for yourself.

 

[Lentwood]

Also which simpler times? Times and conditions keep changing all the time. For everyone. They kept changing in the 30+ years SAF managed, too. LvG or Pep themselves have copied great managers from previous or “outdated” eras after all.

Football has changed more in the last 10 years than it did in the 50 or so previous. This City or Liverpool team would beat the United 68 European Cup Final winning team 20-0, they

No I am not getting into an argument no one is having, rather into an argument we are exactly having here.

You can paint it whatever way you want. For example if SAF left much of the coaching to his assistants, then still why did the former players not pick it up from them then? From Kidd, McClaren or Queiroz? So it wasn’t lessons learnt “from him solely in terms of playing style/coaching”, but rather from him and his different assistants/coaches.

And do you really believe Keane, Bruce and Co would have succeeded in previous eras? They did also manage in previous eras after all. Do you believe they would have won league titles with United against Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez or Mancini? Or would have achieved the same SAF did with Aberdeen?

Your main argument seems to be they are from a different/simpler era. Whereas my argument is they are just not good enough (like 99% of ex players) to manage in any era.

Also which simpler times? Times and conditions keep changing all the time. For everyone. They kept changing in the 30+ years SAF managed, too. LvG or Pep themselves have copied great managers from previous or “outdated” eras after all.

You're getting defensive about people claiming Quieroz/McLaren did most of the actual coaching, when that's something which is widely acknowledged by many of our ex-players and staff. It's not some kind of secret theory, it's widely accepted to be true.

So, to answer your point, why didn't they learn from Queiroz or McLaren? I am sure they did learn something, after all, many of our ex-players have gone on to be decent managers, if not great managers. Again, however, you would say that what McLaren and Queiroz were doing in the 90s/00s was very simplistic compared to what the likes of City, Bayern, Liverpool and Chelsea do now. I'm sure they had the fundamentals spot-on, but it would pale into comparison against the military drilling top teams get now.

Going back to the point at hand. I once read an interview with Pep where he stated he spent hundreds of hours watching re-runs of handball matches and netball matches to learn about how teams utilised space and shape in these sports. Can you imagine SAF sitting down and doing that? Never in a million years. Not happening. It's not a criticism of him, it just wasn't the 'done thing' in English football in the 90s/00s and he was a manager (as I keep saying) rather than a 'head coach', working under a DoF and numerous other people running 'footballing affairs' behind the scenes.

I am sure Pep could learn plenty about football management from someone like SAF, Clough or Shankly...but could he learn anything about tactics? Personally, I would say 'doubtful'.

 

[united_99]

Football has changed more in the last 10 years than it did in the 50 or so previous. This City or Liverpool team would beat the United 68 European Cup Final winning team 20-0, they


You're getting defensive about people claiming Quieroz/McLaren did most of the actual coaching, when that's something which is widely acknowledged by many of our ex-players and staff. It's not some kind of secret theory, it's widely accepted to be true.

So, to answer your point, why didn't they learn from Queiroz or McLaren? I am sure they did learn something, after all, many of our ex-players have gone on to be decent managers, if not great managers. Again, however, you would say that what McLaren and Queiroz were doing in the 90s/00s was very simplistic compared to what the likes of City, Bayern, Liverpool and Chelsea do now. I'm sure they had the fundamentals spot-on, but it would pale into comparison against the military drilling top teams get now.

Going back to the point at hand. I once read an interview with Pep where he stated he spent hundreds of hours watching re-runs of handball matches and netball matches to learn about how teams utilised space and shape in these sports. Can you imagine SAF sitting down and doing that? Never in a million years. Not happening. It's not a criticism of him, it just wasn't the 'done thing' in English football in the 90s/00s and he was a manager (as I keep saying) rather than a 'head coach', working under a DoF and numerous other people running 'footballing affairs' behind the scenes.

I am sure Pep could learn plenty about football management from someone like SAF, Clough or Shankly...but could he learn anything about tactics? Personally, I would say 'doubtful'.

This all sounds good, but doesn’t make sense. When even someone like Ole got his tactics right, Pep’s City couldn’t beat him 20-0. Pep’s Barca couldn’t beat Di Mateo’s 10-men Chelsea. So I assume our 68 team would have today’s technology, knowledge and tools if they were playing today and as good and intelligent as they were they would have eventually applied them.

No I don’t think Pep could learn much tactics from SAF. But why does this matter? SAF never wanted to be like anyone, he had his own ideas but was always willing to learn different things.

Anyway, would Pep learn much tactics from Zidane or Ancelotti? These 2 combined have won more CLs in the last decade than Pep, Klopp and Tuchel combined.
You are acting as if only managers like Pep who watch handball and netball matches are succeeding nowadays.

And SAF was not anything like a DoF, a DoF isn’t so close to the players and games, deciding who plays, making changes, analyzing games, etc. Yes he did a lot more than a head coach and he brought different assistants and coaches in. Which is a great thing as every club has different coaches every few years anyway.
However as United had the same manager for 26 years of course changes were needed every few years and people needed to be brought in from outside.
I am sure if SAF had retired in 2002 we would be having the same arguments … “can you imagine him competing with foreign tactical managers like Mourinho and Benitez … Oil money … new generation of players like Ronaldo, Nani, Rooney … Fergie’s hairdryer wouldn’t work any longer … blah blah”.

 

[Foxbatt]

You seem to be getting caught up in an argument nobody is having. The question is - why do most of Fergie's "disciples" fail as managers?

The answer some of us are giving is that a) SAF was from a simpler time, when tactics weren't as advanced, and therefore lessons learnt from him solely in relation to playing style/coaching may be non-transferable b) SAF was a 'manager' not a 'head coach' (like Pep/Klopp/Tuchel) and therefore never really cared for excruciating tactical details/planning and c) SAF left much of the coaching to Brian Kidd, Steve McLaren and Carlos Quieroz (something which ex-players/staff refer to regularly)

Some people are so caught up in the cult of SAF, they just blindly come out swinging without reading any of the discussion or seemingly even the thread title

I agree with you and that is why we were not successful in Europe as we should have been. Tactically he gets beaten in Europe a lot more than he should have if he was tactically that good. His ex players fail because they try to do what they did and the world has moved on. A lot of the top managers have managed outside of their own countries and become successful.

 

[largelyworried]

Why should they? The only reason you'd expect them to become good managers was if good players regularly became good managers, but at best there seems to be no correlation there. If anything it feels the other way, loads of great mangers were nothing players.