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

The idea that just cause SAF was an all time great, it'd rub off on people is kinda mental.

That's not how skills work.

You can watch a million hours of football, your chances of making it to an EPL level is probably about the same if you'd never seen the game in your life prior to playing.

Elite level managers are super rare, the 300-400 players that came through the club in Fergies time isn't even a big sample size.
 
Lentwood said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand the point of the thread. I've already addressed that directly by stating that I think it's simply a numbers game, there can only be X amount of top level managers with the overall characteristics of which tactics are just one example.

What is being discussed is at least tangentially related because of this idea they partly fail because Ferguson was tactically average. Which is a completely separate thing to whether Fergies tactics would work in 2021 - of course they would not and I struggle to imagine anybody would think otherwise.

The problem with the argument around Fergie being tactically average is that Ferguson adapted time and time again. If his "disciples" are glued to ideas he came up with in 1999 then that is their problem. It's really a separate point to Ferguson's tactical quality - what they are really saying is they haven't got the chops.

I don't believe a manager is his ideas decades ago, he is his entire body of attributes. How tactically astute he is will be defined by results, how can it be otherwise? If Ferguson was winning things throughout his whole reign then in my opinion he was more than astute throughout.

Whether he did it all himself, or with some help, seems quite a pointless dissection as we don't really know beyond the fact he is the common factor - we have no idea how much all these coaches help in modern football except thin anecdotal evidence. That's why I go back to hard results - he got them, over and over across eras. So I can't see any other sensible conclusion than him being a top tactician.
 
Being successful doesn't mean others can emulate it just because they've watched it. Elite managers are an incredibly rare breed for a reason. Why is Guardiola the only successful Cruyff disciple? It takes a special kind of person to be successful and not everyone can do it. Otherwise you'd just pair footballers to great managers and just let them inherit the side and skills, no bumps whatsoever.
 
I wouldn’t call the failures it’s almost extraordinary how much of his players managed.

In the modern game and in most games you need to be agressive to compete ala Simeone however to win things apart from the odd anomaly you need to be super rich.
 
Giggs seemed to be passable before he got hauled up in court. Hughes has had a decent career, albeit he's now a bit shit. Michael Appleton is decent enough. There've been many ok ones really.

I think the odds against a given manager being really good are quite long. I've had some bosses who are absolutely incredible at motivating you but, even though I've obviously picked up a few hints and habits along the way, it doesn't mean that I am an incredible motivator. A large part of that is purely personality, experience and the way you think.

The "system" clubs like Barça and Ajax are obviously more likely to produce good managers because those details of how they play are capable of being passed on to a good student. In saying that though, I don't believe the best managers are made by the system clubs. The likes of Klopp has a style for sure, but mainly he's about passion, adaptability and belief. Much like Sir Alex really.

I also think many of the Bayern coaches have been quite similar. Tactically astute, good coaches for sure, but also capable of adapting to the situation and what they've got to work with, and most importantly capable of instilling confidence and belief.
 
Very interesting Michael Cox article on a very similar topic in The Athletic- "Barely any of Sir Alex Ferguson’s former players, who we are constantly told were accustomed to a non-negotiable attacking football philosophy, have shown any commitment to attacking football as managers. Funny, that."

Essentially emphasises how Fergie was so good at adapting, but didn't really have a consistent style (which in itself was part of his genius). The whole 'United DNA' stuff is largely a vague invention by pundits in the last couple of decades.
 
RooneyLegend said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Positional football was on the rise and "traditional" tactics were starting to be left in the dust.

Pep's 100 point season shows just how dominant position football have become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.