Who do you think is the best Manager in the World?

Warper

Just wondering who do people think is the best manager in the world. There are so many top-class managers around, with the most of them from the continent. Obviously the likes of Ferguson, Wenger, Ancelloti from the PL and Guardiola, Mourinho, Hiddink, Capello, Del Bosque etc etc.

gimmick

Ancelloti

Ferguson. To win big trophies consistently over a 20 year period, while developing plenty youth players at the same time makes him stand out over everyone else.

ziggy

Ancelloti

This post has been deleted.

everdead.ie

Capello

How Domenech hasn't been mentioned yet is a crime.




I'll get my coat/

Warper

BTW I could have added a lot more so add any if you want.

Qwerty27

Il Trap?!

tdv

Hiddink

Where's Trap?

SlickRic

Ancelloti

Ferguson.

unfortunately.

a one-off.

b*stard.

larchielads

Ancelloti

never mind trapp wheres steve "i'm the gaffer" staunton:D

Kenny_D

Ancelloti

Declan Kidney

Ah no its prob Fergie alright

Ancelloti

Ferguson.

SlickRic

Ancelloti

lippi, ferguson and capello are in a league of their own at this moment.

Keano

Ancelloti

gimmick wrote: »

Ferguson. To win big trophies consistently over a 20 year period, while developing plenty youth players at the same time makes him stand out over everyone else.

Great post.

Not a United fan but Ferguson is top of the pile.

premierstone

Like most of these ''best'' threads really does depend on what you mean by ''best''

JPA

Hiddink

Guardiola, 100% record in every competition Barcelona have played in!

SlickRic

Ancelloti

premierstone wrote: »

Like most of these ''best'' threads really does depend on what you mean by ''best''

do elaborate...

i would think criteria such as success (trophies), building teams, longetivity and player development are prominent.

which manger displays the combination of these sorts of things the best?

if we're honest with ourselves, unfortunately, there's only one, two, maybe three real options for a winner.

Frisbee

Ancelloti

Ferguson at a canter

mormank

Mourinho

JPA wrote: »

Guardiola, 100% record in every competition Barcelona have played in!

proof that stats can be found to support any almost argument!

Gillington

Other

Hiddinks record of managing International Teams is awesome(although he didnt qualify this time round and South Korea's progress to the semi's is controversial to say the least!) but he also has a few trophies at club level.

6 Dutch titles with PSV
6 Dutch cups with PSV
1 European Cup with PSV
1 FA Cup with Chelsea
1 Intercontinental cup with real Madrid

Pighead

mormank wrote: »

proof that stats can be found to support any almost argument!

Damn right. It's why Alexander Burke is the greatest pop singer of all time. Everything she has ever released has gone straight to number one in the charts.

Boskowski

What about RehHagel?

SlickRic

Ancelloti

Gillington wrote: »

Hiddinks record of managing International Teams is awesome(although he didnt qualify this time round and South Korea's progress to the semi's is controversial to say the least!) but he also has a few trophies at club level.

6 Dutch titles with PSV
6 Dutch cups with PSV
1 European Cup with PSV
1 FA Cup with Chelsea
1 Intercontinental cup with real Madrid

hmmm...great manager, but, the Dutch League in all fairness.

premierstone

SlickRic wrote: »

do elaborate...

i would think criteria such as success (trophies), building teams, longetivity and player development are prominent.

which manger displays the combination of these sorts of things the best?

if we're honest with ourselves, unfortunately, there's only one, two, maybe three real options for a winner.

All the things you have mentioned but then also there is achievements with a smaller club, working with no money, attractiveness of football played, comparisons with predecessors and loads others that I cant think off....

But in reality I guess combined with what he achieved with Aberdeen and Utd then Sir Alex is a clear winner, Arsene Wenger gets a special mention for the amazing legacy he has created at Arsenal and Guardiola has started very impressively but it will be when he's first crisis hits that will be the making or breaking of him imo.

GLaDOS

Ancelloti

Has to be Ferguson

Bounty Hunter

Ferguson

according to FM manager I am and thats supposed to be really accurate right.

Ferguson has to be a favourite really although I dont know if everyone would considerb sustained success at one club achieving more than people who have got success at numerous clus which have differing expectations, cultures and structures to deal with as it could be argued some of the other managers have done. Im a big fan of Capello personally but i dont know if id pick him as the best although im sure if England win the world cup he will know doubt be considered it by o so many

Dun laoire

Ancelloti

Ferguson is without doubt the Godfather of football

Ush1

Mourinho

Wenger.

FlawedGenius

Trappatoni;)

GavRedKing

Ancelloti

Would love to say Ancelloti but it has to be Ferguson TBH.

Wetehr you love him or hate him hes the best in the world, possibly ever. If you judge on success and the players that he has bought and sold and brought through his record is just immense and there for all to see.

Give Carlo a few years at Chelsea and people will see why we got him from A.C. another top quality manager.

Morzadec

Ferguson

It's very hard to judge and it would really depend on what team this manager is managing as well.

For example Guardiola has proven himself to be a great manager, but how good would he be when it comes to managing a relegation-threatened team with limited players? I would much rather Mourinho or Benitez in this situation.

Also there's many criteria a manager can be judged on. When it comes to the transfer market it's hard to argue against Wenger's net spend to quality ratio. But is he proven to spend effectively when it comes to big signings?

Benitez managed ton win the CL with a team that (quality-wise) was probably not even good enough to reach the knock-out stages. When it comes to one-off big games, he is arguably the best tactician out there, and he has tactically out-manouvered some of the names on this list who may be considered as 'better' managers. But is he merely an effective manager at over-achieving with an average squad rather than building a dominant one?

I think overall it would have to go to Ferguson, but as I said it would really depend on what you're looking for/what team they are to manage. Also I probably amn't knowledgable enough about football outside the PL to pass proper judgment on the others

Le King

Ancelloti

Fergie...


/Thread Closed

mink_man

Ancelloti

whoever picked benitez is havin a laugh right?

nullzero

Ancelloti

Has to be Ferguson, who else can even hold a candle to him these days?

x PyRo

Mourinho

Wenger, in my bias opinion!.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Ancelloti

Ferguson.
Surpried that no one's picked Mourinho, tbh.

Sheepy99

Hiddink

To anyone who votes for Fergie : NO.

dfx-

Other

Gillington wrote: »

Hiddinks record of managing International Teams is awesome(although he didnt qualify this time round and South Korea's progress to the semi's is controversial to say the least!) but he also has a few trophies at club level.

6 Dutch titles with PSV
6 Dutch cups with PSV
1 European Cup with PSV
1 FA Cup with Chelsea
1 Intercontinental cup with real Madrid

And semi-final of a World Cup with South Korea.* Hiddink for me too. Then Guardiola, Capello and Michael O'Neill..



*I have decided for the purposes of argument to exclude the nature of the "controversial" decisions in 2002 to get to the semi final..:cool:

Y2J_MUFC

Ancelloti

everdead.ie wrote: »

How Domenech hasn't been mentioned yet is a crime.

I'll get my coat/

No time for the coat! Just go!

Rafa has votes? How anyone can honestly say that man is the best manager in the world is beyond belief.

It would be between Ferguson and Mourinho IMHO.

Bubs101

Capello

Benitez gets 3 votes and Lippi and Capello get 2. Jesus.

For me it's either the two above or Fergie and although i voted Lippi I think my Juve fandom might have swayed me away from Capello.

Capello has done brilliantly everywhere he's been which is a lot harder than doing brilliantly in once place and staying there. Every single club he has managed has lifted the Serie A or La Liga and in the case of Roma that was a massive achievment considering the strength in depth of that era in Serie was the strongest any league has ever had at the top IMO and Roma's underachievment before and after him.

Lippi on the other hand has failed pretty much everywhere outside of Juve and Italy but he's won on the national and International stage at the top level. Has to be Capello IMO

Col200sx

Benitez

Surprised I'm the only voter for Mourinho:eek:

Also, would Martin O'Neill not have been deserving of a mention?

Quite a successful career dating back to the mid 90s with Wycome, Norwich, then done wonders at Leicester, Celtic and brought Villa back into Europe

Supermanscat

Ancelloti

Col200sx wrote: »

Surprised I'm the only voter for Mourinho:eek:

Also, would Martin O'Neill not have been deserving of a mention?

Quite a successful career dating back to the mid 90s with Wycome, Norwich, then done wonders at Leicester, Celtic and brought Villa back into Europe

Overrated if anything......

kinaldo

Hiddink

Vicente del Bosque when he adds the World Cup to his

2 Champions Leagues, 2 Spanish Leagues, 1 Intercontinental Cup, 1 European Super Cup and 1 Spanish Super Cup

all achieved within his first 4 years of management.

dfx-

Other

I'm not quite judging it on success or trophy lists. Anyone can get lucky in finals. Their means, their approach to the game etc etc. sets a manager apart for me.

The best manager doesn't have to have the biggest trophy cabinet.

Bounty Hunter

Ferguson

Col200sx wrote: »

Surprised I'm the only voter for Mourinho:eek:

Also, would Martin O'Neill not have been deserving of a mention?

Quite a successful career dating back to the mid 90s with Wycome, Norwich, then done wonders at Leicester, Celtic and brought Villa back into Europe

im a fan of MON but no he does not deserve to be mentioned in the best in the world boys.

I voted Capello for what Bubs said tbh, Fergie was close though and as said if Capello wins on the world stage with England... forgedaboutit

kinaldo

Hiddink

dfx- wrote: »

I'm not quite judging it on success or trophy lists. Anyone can get lucky in finals. Their means, their approach to the game etc etc. sets a manager apart for me.

Real Madrid under del Bosque always played wonderful football, dominated possesion, had a never say die attitude, and would always rise to the big occasions...


very much like his Spain team of today

what is so impressive about his style is his management of so many egos.

Compare his Madrid era with the situation at Madrid today, where one of their most talented players, Guti, has been finally frozen out after numerous bust ups.

Del Bosque always used to refer to Guti as the 12th man of the team, since he couldn't always accomodate him in first 11 amongst Zidane and Figo.

There were never any bust ups though, and Guti rewarded him one season by scoring 17 or 18 goals.

Ronaldo, Raúl, Figo, Zidane etc. similarly all had their best years at Madrid when he was the manager.

mink_man

Ancelloti

dfx- wrote: »

And semi-final of a World Cup with South Korea.* Hiddink for me too. Then Guardiola, Capello and Michael O'Neill..



*I have decided for the purposes of argument to exclude the nature of the "controversial" decisions in 2002 to get to the semi final..:cool:

must be an up and coming manager this michael o neill??

JokerD

Simon Grayson

DazMarz

Ancelloti

Sir Alex Ferguson will probably go down in history as the greatest football manager ever. The list of trophies and competitions the man has won alone would make it so (Premier League, FA Cup, European Cup, World Club Cup, ad nauseum).

However, there is one problem I can see with all this: since 1986, when he started his tenure, Sir Alex Ferguson has had control over one of the richest, most powerful clubs in football. He has had almost infinite resources at his disposal, with which to buy and sell players almost at will. Their youth system, second to none, has also had this advantage of having the best of everything (equipment, scouts, facilities etc.) and has allowed Ferguson to not only have free reign over the transfer markets but also to tap into a rich vein of rising stars moving through the Academy.

Not to take anything from the man, but do Manchester United under-perform on the European stage? Again, the richest and most powerful football club in the world, and since Ferguson took over, they've won the European Cup twice. Since 1986. Twice in 23 years. To win the European Cup twice sounds impressive, but when you add the adendum ''in 23 years'' it loses some of its lustre. Yes, United have been one of the big teams in Europe, consistently reaching knock-out stages of the European Cup year in, year out. But merely being the richest and most powerful club in football, they surely should have won it more than twice in 23 years?

Would Sir Alex Ferguson be the best manager in history if he did not have the backing of millionaires, huge resources and stewardship of the biggest club in the world? Would he have become so lauded and so revered at a lesser club? Highly unlikely.

But then, all that said and done, 11 Premier League titles in 17 years of the Premier League (since the 1992-93 season) is a remarkable acheivement.

But I still wonder, without all of the riches and all of the power and glamour of a club like Manchester United, would Ferguson have been as revered? If someone else had taken the job in 1986, would they be now upon the same pedestal as he is, or would it have imploded?

Sir Alex Ferguson is a great manager, but, in all fairness, with such a club and such resources behind him, he should be.

kinaldo

Hiddink

DazMarz wrote: »

Sir Alex Ferguson will probably go down in history as the greatest football manager ever. The list of trophies and competitions the man has won alone would make it so (Premier League, FA Cup, European Cup, World Club Cup, ad nauseum).

However, there is one problem I can see with all this: since 1986, when he started his tenure, Sir Alex Ferguson has had control over one of the richest, most powerful clubs in football. He has had almost infinite resources at his disposal, with which to buy and sell players almost at will. Their youth system, second to none, has also had this advantage of having the best of everything (equipment, scouts, facilities etc.) and has allowed Ferguson to not only have free reign over the transfer markets but also to tap into a rich vein of rising stars moving through the Academy.

Not to take anything from the man, but do Manchester United under-perform on the European stage? Again, the richest and most powerful football club in the world, and since Ferguson took over, they've won the European Cup twice. Since 1986. Twice in 23 years. To win the European Cup twice sounds impressive, but when you add the adendum ''in 23 years'' it loses some of its lustre. Yes, United have been one of the big teams in Europe, consistently reaching knock-out stages of the European Cup year in, year out. But merely being the richest and most powerful club in football, they surely should have won it more than twice in 23 years?

Would Sir Alex Ferguson be the best manager in history if he did not have the backing of millionaires, huge resources and stewardship of the biggest club in the world? Would he have become so lauded and so revered at a lesser club? Highly unlikely.

But then, all that said and done, 11 Premier League titles in 17 years of the Premier League (since the 1992-93 season) is a remarkable acheivement.

But I still wonder, without all of the riches and all of the power and glamour of a club like Manchester United, would Ferguson have been as revered? If someone else had taken the job in 1986, would they be now upon the same pedestal as he is, or would it have imploded?

Sir Alex Ferguson is a great manager, but, in all fairness, with such a club and such resources behind him, he should be.

That is a ridiculous argument, and I'm certainly no great Fergie admirer.

First off, winning 2 European Cups in a 23 year timespan doesn not lose some of lustre. How many of thos years were English clubs banned from Europe for a start?

Secondly, Manchester United weren't always the biggest and richest club, at various stages throughout his reign. Lest we forget Chelsea's spending, and Real Madrid, while Inter and other teams have also probably spent more.

And not least, when Man Utd may have been the big spenders, it was mostly down to the success which he brought them.

Also, he also won the Cup Winners' Cup, back when it meant something, defeating Barcelona's 'Dream Team' no less.

Finally, his domestic and European successes with Aberdeen were nothing short of remarkable in the context of Scotish football.

Given the resources that he has had / generated at Man Utd, do you honestly think anyone could have done better?

PHB

Ancelloti

United's purchasing power in teh market has always been a result of their success and their footballing style. Fergie was behind the attacking football and the success, and as a result, got plenty of money thrown back into the team, because it made business sense.

That is the perfect way to be a manager. Unsuccessful clubs can't spend as much because they don't make as much. To criticise Fergie for having money is just silly.

Not least because he's best when he doesn't have it

For me, Ferguson is the best, and best for a reason. Don't forget how he got the United job, his outstanding performances at Aberdeen.

For me, the pick of the younger managers is Mourinho. Although I'm intrigued to see how Guardiola will do long term.

DazMarz

Ancelloti

kinaldo wrote: »

That is a ridiculous argument, and I'm certainly no great Fergie admirer.

First off, winning 2 European Cups in a 23 year timespan doesn not lose some of lustre. How many of thos years were English clubs banned from Europe for a start?

Secondly, Manchester United weren't always the biggest and richest club, at various stages throughout his reign. Lest we forget Chelsea's spending, and Real Madrid, while Inter and other teams have also probably spent more.

And not least, when Man Utd may have been the big spenders, it was mostly down to the success which he brought them.

Also, he also won the Cup Winners' Cup, back when it meant something, defeating Barcelona's 'Dream Team' no less.

Finally, his domestic and European successes with Aberdeen were nothing short of remarkable in the context of Scotish football.

Given the resources that he has had / generated at Man Utd, do you honestly think anyone could have done better?

PHB wrote: »

United's purchasing power in teh market has always been a result of their success and their footballing style. Fergie was behind the attacking football and the success, and as a result, got plenty of money thrown back into the team, because it made business sense.

That is the perfect way to be a manager. Unsuccessful clubs can't spend as much because they don't make as much. To criticise Fergie for having money is just silly.

Not least because he's best when he doesn't have it

For me, Ferguson is the best, and best for a reason. Don't forget how he got the United job, his outstanding performances at Aberdeen.

For me, the pick of the younger managers is Mourinho. Although I'm intrigued to see how Guardiola will do long term.

I'm not criticising Fergie.

I'm merely picking up on an argument I read in a book written by Sporting Economists where they raised the exact same points, in that United are the biggest club in the world and their results should come naturally. I honestly do not think so.

I don't know of anyone who could have done better, but I'm merely wondering if you took the best manager in the world and landed him with a club stripped of resources, players, power, prestige, etc., would he still be able to deliver?

And, in fairness, how can I, a Chelsea fan, criticise any other team for having money?!!?!:o