Fergie Voted Greatest Manager of all time.

midget lord

The Muppet wrote:

Ok Paisely won more European cups but at teh time it was a shadow of the competition it is today. Taking nothing away from the man but that is fact.

The european cup between 77 and 84, the period in which liverpool dominated, was what todays cup purports to be, a competition of champions. The league winners from each country. It could also be argued that the first round league system is an easier way of qualifying for the latter stages rather than having to play two two legged ties against a lesser known opposition in sub-zero conditions in a former russian state. To say the competition then, is but a shadow of the competition now, is a complete overstatement and a succumbing to the media hype the current competition receives.

SteM

Ardent wrote:

I hear ya but it's not like it was young kids voting in this poll, it was current managers in the Premiership allegedly, guys with an average age of 50 or so.

Nope you're right they're not kids but they are his peers and I think in a vote of this kind they're more likely to vote for someone that they would compare themselves too rather than look too far into history.

Not 100% sure but it's likely.

Edited for spelling.

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

Fergie has won more that twice the amount of silverware than Paisley did and he did it at two clubs building his own squads a number of times , Paisley inherited an already successful team.

Excuse me, but the purpose of the poll was to decide the greatest manager of an English club, not a Scottish one. As has already been said, on a pure trophy count, Paisley wins this hands down.

End of.

SteM

midget lord wrote:

The european cup between 77 and 84, the period in which liverpool dominated, was what todays cup purports to be, a competition of champions. The league winners from each country. It could also be argued that the first round league system is an easier way of qualifying for the latter stages rather than having to play two two legged ties against lesser known opposition in sub-zero former russian state. To the competition then, is but a shadow of the competition now is a complete overstatement and a succumbing to the media hype the current competition receives.

That's a different argument though - you could just as easily point out that footballers of today are better athletes than they were back in the late 70's/early 80s so it's harder competition to win now.

BTW, I agree completely that the European Cup has been devalued somewhat since it was opened up to 'non-champion' sides but I wouldn't go so far as to say 'the competition then, is but a shadow of the competition now is a complete overstatement and a succumbing to the media hype the current competition receives..'. It's still an incredibly difficult competition to win.

midget lord

SteM wrote:

That's a different argument though - you could just as easily point out that footballers of today are better athletes than they were back in the late 70's/early 80s so it's harder competition to win now.
It's still an incredibly difficult competition to win.

Agreed. So the question that begs asking is "are we comparing like with like?"

Ardent

midget lord wrote:

The european cup between 77 and 84, the period in which liverpool dominated, was what todays cup purports to be, a competition of champions. The league winners from each country. It could also be argued that the first round league system is an easier way of qualifying for the latter stages rather than having to play two two legged ties against lesser known opposition in sub-zero former russian state. To the competition then, is but a shadow of the competition now is a complete overstatement and a succumbing to the media hype the current competition receives.

Well said. Thank you for replying to that for me. I'd also like to say that some the best soccer players ever to grace a pitch in European competition did so in the 70s and 80s, e.g., Cruyff, Platini, Beckenbauer, Brehme, Zoff, Rossi, the list is endless.

St Etienne, M'gladbach etc might be small fry these days but back in the 70s they were some of the best teams in Europe for a period. Back then, Chelsea were minnows of the game. I'm sure you can grasp the point I'm leading up to...

The Muppet

midget lord wrote:

To the competition then, is but a shadow of the competition now is a complete overstatement and a succumbing to the media hype the current competition receives.

I like what you're doing there dismissing my point without posting anything to back up your point apart from opinion. Well heres proof for you.

To win the 1976 european cup Liverpool played 9 games beating the might of Crusaders, Fc Zurich in both legs , Winning on aggregate against Trabzonspor and St Etienne despite losing the away legs and then beating Burussia Moenchengladbach in the final.

In 1977 it only took them 7 matches to be crowned Champions beating
Dynamo Dresden , Benfica ,Burussia Moenchengladbach and FC Bruges in the final

To put it into perspective they have already played 10 games in the current champions league against GAK, Monaco,Olympiakos, Deportivo La Coruna and Bayer Leverkusen and they are only in the Quarter Final. To progress to the Semi Final they have to beat Juventus over two legs and assuming they do that to get into the final they will have to beat the winners of Chelsea V Bayern Munich .and most people will agree Liverpool have had a realtively easy route by todays standards.

Taking nothing away from Liverpool you can only beat what's in front of you but its blatenly obvious that the standard of this competition is a lot higher now than it was in those days. Anyone that says differently either does not remember those competitions and/or are ignoring the facts .

The Muppet

Ardent wrote:

Excuse me, but the purpose of the poll was to decide the greatest manager of an English club, not a Scottish one. As has already been said, on a pure trophy count, Paisley wins this hands down.

End of.

LOL yes if you discount Fergies success in Scotland it does somewhat narrow the gap. Let's pretend they never happened.

On second thoughs lets not, Paisley won 11 Cups, Fergie has won 25 plus more to come . But Pasiley still wins hands down I suppose.
:rolleyes:

The Rooster

The Muppet wrote:

To win the 1976 european cup Liverpool played 9 games beating the might of Crusaders, Fc Zurich in both legs , Winning on aggregate against Trabzonspor and St Etienne despite losing the away legs and then beating Burussia Moenchengladbach in the final.

In 1977 it only took them 7 matches to be crowned Champions beating
Dynamo Dresden , Benfica ,Burussia Moenchengladbach and FC Bruges in the final

Taking nothing away from liverpool you can only beat what's in front of you but its blatenly obvious that the standard of this competition is a lot higher now than it was in those days. Anyone that says differently either does not remember those competitions or are ignoring the facts .

Sorry muppet, but thats just bolleex. You have no idea of the strength of those teams, yet you are giving us your expert analysis that they werent up to much. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

St Etienne were a very good side, champions of France, and had more than just Platini playing for them - although him alone would make them special. Moenchengladbach were an excellent side at that time, filled with internationals who had won World Cups and European Championships - they were very unfortunate that Liverpool came along at the same time they were at their best. Bruges were also very good - Belgium were one of Europe's 3 or 4 sides for about 10 yerars in the late 70s and early 80s, and Bruges were usually the best club side there.

Although I like the way you ignored beating Bayern and Real in 81 and Roma in 84. You must have heard of them.......

BTW, Ferguson and Paisley were both the best. As were Shankly and Clough.

midget lord

Again, muppet, "are we comparing like with like?", forget your high-horse there for while.

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

LOL yes if you discount Fergies success in Scotland it does somewhat narrow the gap. Let's pretend they never happened.

I am slowly going insane! Please go back and read the original post to see what the objective of the poll was. What ferguson did in Scotland, while impressive, has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

Sorry muppet, but thats just bolleex. You have no idea of the strength of those teams, yet you are giving us your expert analysis that they werent up to much. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

St Etienne were a very good side, champions of France, and had more than just Platini playing for them - although him alone would make them special. Moenchengladbach were an excellent side at that time, filled with internationals who had won World Cups and European Championships - they were very unfortunate that Liverpool came along at the same time they were at their best. Bruges were also very good - Belgium were one of Europe's 3 or 4 sides for about 10 yerars in the late 70s and early 80s, and Bruges were usually the best club side there.

Although I like the way you ignored beating Bayern and Real in 81 and Roma in 84. You must have heard of them.......

BTW, Ferguson and Paisley were both the best. As were Shankly and Clough.

Are you saying that the European cup was a stronger competiition that the Champions League. If so you are the one talking Bollox as I have adequetly demonstrated in my previous post. Fact is It was a weaker competition Liverpool won it by winning Just 5 games in 77, how far would that get you now?

The Mighty Crusaders eh.

Emmo

well I guess this is a topic on which we will all have to agree to disagree.

That said these managers are the ones we slag of every week for signing and playing the donkeys we hate!!!!

Are they really in a position to vote for the greatest manager?



Emmo

Emmo

tell me this Muppet, how many games did United win in 99?

Thats right 6, they won 6.

Where would 5 have got you? the final that you fluked.

Dont talk about wins this and wins that,

You cant compere the two systems and the two compertitions. They are different eras.

Im still waiting for the Rio factoid caveats.

You will defo have to put in some qualifying statments on your statistics from now on.

Emmo

The Muppet

Ardent wrote:

I am slowly going insane! Please go back and read the original post to see what the objective of the poll was. What ferguson did in Scotland, while impressive, has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.

Ye let's ignore them.


NOT

I don't need to read the Article again, I Posted it in the first place. If you read the article you would see that Fergies success at Aberdeen was a factor in him winning the poll. Now guys if you have anythiing apart from opinion to counter my argument I would love to see it.

Emmo wrote:

tell me this Muppet, how many games did United win in 99?

Emmo

Was that the year they won the real Treble?

If you want to prove something you post the proof I,m not doing it for you.

Emmo

Yes the year they won the triple.

Did you avoid that question or reply when I was still editing it?

Emmo

The Muppet

Emmo wrote:

Yes the year they won the triple.

Did you avoid that question or reply when I was still editing it?

Emmo

Post all the fixtures for the competition that year or are we to ignore some of the games just like we shoud ignore Aberdeen to suit the agenda. Fact is Liverpool won the comp in 1977 by playing 7 games in total . How many games must you play to win the comp now?

midget lord wrote:

Again, muppet, "are we comparing like with like?", forget your high-horse there for while.

Something bugging you big man?

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

I don't need to read the Article again, I Posted it in the first place. If you read the article you would see that Fergies success at Aberdeen was a factor in him winning the poll.

Please quote the part in the article where it says that. The only reference to Aberdeen in the original post was your own little addendum at the end.

Emmo

ok here is the proof

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/AllTimeStatistics/Season=1998/round=1210/index.html
2nd Qualifying stage
United vs Lodz 2-0 on aggregate (0-0 away , 2-0 home) 1 win

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/AllTimeStatistics/Season=1998/round=1211/Group=974.html
Group stages group D
Played 6 Won 2 Drawn 4 Lost 0 2 wins

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/AllTimeStatistics/Season=1998/round=1212/index.html
Quarters
Man. United 3-1 Internazionale (2-0 home , 1-1 away) 1 win

Semi final
Man. United 4-3 Juventus (1-1 home , 3-2 away) 1 win

Total 5 wins and your in the final and if you sacrifice 1 of those wins for a draw at the group stages 5 wins would have won it for you.

Emmo

super_furry

The Muppet wrote:

Post all the fixtures for the competition that year or are we to ignore some of the games just like we shoud ignore Aberdeen to suit the agenda. Fact is Liverpool won the comp in 1977 by playing 7 games in total . How many games must you play to win the comp now?

Or how many games do you have to win to actually win the competition? In United's case in 1999 - five. If you're so intent in disecting past European Cups, what does it saw when a team can lift the cup by only winning a meagre five of their eleven games? And qualify for the knock-out stages by winning just two games?

Edit - I see Emmo beat me to it.

The Rooster

The Muppet wrote:

Are you saying that the European cup was a stronger competiition that the Champions League. If so you are the one talking Bollox as I have adequetly demonstrated in my previous post. Fact is It was a weaker competition Liverpool won it by winning Just 5 games in 77, how far would that get you now?

The Mighty Crusaders eh.

I said nowhere that the European Cup was stronger then. I just had to counter the bollex you were talking about the quality of oppositon Liverpool beat back then. And by implicaiton you admit you were talking bollex in your previous post, as you dont dispute what I said (there's nothing to dispute of course, as you were talking bollex). You demonstarted nothing apart from your lack of knowledge of European football in the 70s. So my point is made.

As for the rest of this quoted post:

Fact is you had to win your league (or the European Cup) to even get into the European Cup back then. Fact is that ManU or Ferguson would not have won the European Cup in 1999 if the old rules applied as they did not win the league in 1998. So that would have made the 1999 Champions League a lot harder for ManU to win Of course maybe they would have won in another year when they had been champions the year before and were knocked out be a team that werent. The number of games it takes to win it is totally irrelevant as the group stages are (or at least should be) easy to get out of for the genuine contenders.

Overall, when you are in it, the CL is harder to win than an EC because you are up against more strong teams. However, the EC was harder to get into as you had to win your league (or the EC itself) the year before, so you needed to be very strong two years in a row. So overall there's not a lot in it, if anything. So its only a matter of opinion, so everyone can be right - accept for those who feel really strongly one way or the other, they're the only ones who are wrong - probably includes Muppet and feck all others.

super_furry

Ah, I knew I wasn't imaging things. Quick editing there though Muppet.

So just to be sure and to answer your original (non-edited) question; "Fact is It was a weaker competition Liverpool won it by winning Just 5 games in 77, how far would that get you now?". It would win the competition for you - at least in 1999.

midget lord

The Muppet wrote:

Something bugging you big man?

Not at all. Im sure you will admit that when a discussion about man u is on the forums that you will refuse to listen to others opinions and dismiss them as incorrect if they do not agree with yours.

The fact is that Paisley won 3 eurpean cups in 5 years with liverpool, how many games we played to win it is irrelevant, we won it 3 times in 5 years.

In trophy counts ferguson is far superior to any other english manager, but as many have said, its not all about silverwear but more to do with the job the manager done, otherwise Clough woulnt be considered.

So, if we had all day we could argue back and forth as to who inherited the better squad, but i dont think that would solve anything!

Now lets go back to the trophy count, and if we were really pedantic we could apply weights to the various cups, as winning the champions league is worth at least two league trophies, even the great slur alex will admit that one, are 4 FA cups worth 1 european cup?

Ardent

midget lord wrote:

Now lets go back to the trophy count, and if we were really pedantic we could apply weights to the various cups...

You don't have to. The poll was for the greatest manager of an English club. Count the number of trophies Ferguson won for United and number of trophies Paisley won for Liverpool.

Emmo

Suppose you could argue that a man(ager) is more than just his worth in trophies and that he should be truly judged on what is inside him.

Fact is that the points Muppet makes about the trophies is nonsense.

Fact is also that Sir Alex Ferguson was voted the best.

We cant change either of these facts by argueing.

We could say that its harder to win the old league 1 title that the Premiership. We could argue all day.

I dont think the title was judged on trophies alone so perhaps when judged by a jury of his peers he deserves it.

Then again some will say there are always miscarrages of justice.

Agree to disgree?

Emmo

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

I said nowhere that the European Cup was stronger then. .

As thats what the discussion at the moment is about would you care to come off the fence and give an opinion then or are you happy to just fudge the issue like the others.

The Muppet

super_furry wrote:

Ah, I knew I wasn't imaging things. Quick editing there though Muppet.

So just to be sure and to answer your original (non-edited) question; "Fact is It was a weaker competition Liverpool won it by winning Just 5 games in 77, how far would that get you now?". It would win the competition for you - at least in 1999.

I didn'yt maliciously edit any question. I asked him to post the fixtures for Unied in 99. You keep say United won 5 games ,that's not what I asked. How many Games do you have to play{win lose and draw}to win the cup now. as stated Liverpoll won it having to only play 7 games,

I,m not taking anything away from Liverpooll or their manager I am just staing that IMO it is a much harder competition to win now in the new format than it was in under the old format. If you disagree post some facts to back it up if.

I would remind you that Pasiley didn,t even register second in the poll.

Emmo

Whats a real treble by the way?

One that happes only when United Play, or one that happens in real life?

Surely you cant speak of people being selective in what they post when your lording it over everyone.

The way in which the premiership titles are valued more over the first division titles because they are more recent but the Champions League trophy is worth more because you could play more games to win it, ignoreing the fact you could lose quite a bit and still get really far.

What about this.

Liverpool as a team have not won the league title in 15 years. They have not won the European Cup / Champs League in 11 years and they are still a long way in advance of United with regard to actual trophy hauls.

Im afraid your view point is tainted because of the emotional invenstment you have for United and because of this you cannot rationally argue a point or discuss a matter like this with someone who disagrees with you.

Why else would you ignore me when I reply to you are selectively pick apart my posts?

The rivalry is great but it doesnt change the actual truth.

Liverpool are more succesful than United. This is a fact. So to qualify this you say what we have won is worth less because of this this this etc etc etc.

This is what's known in the business as ignorant rationalisation.

Think of the smoker who knows smoking is bad for him. He wont quit because he cannot. Plus his uncle / someone he knows smoked 70 a day and he died of old age or they only smoke light cigarettes so they are not as bad for him.

Emmo

The Muppet

Emmo wrote:

Whats a real treble by the way?

One that happes only when United Play, or one that happens in real life?

Surely you cant speak of people being selective in what they post when your lording it over everyone.

The way in which the premiership titles are valued more over the first division titles because they are more recent but the Champions League trophy is worth more because you could play more games to win it, ignoreing the fact you could lose quite a bit and still get really far.

What about this.

Liverpool as a team have not won the league title in 15 years. They have not won the European Cup / Champs League in 11 years and they are still a long way in advance of United with regard to actual trophy hauls.

Im afraid your view point is tainted because of the emotional invenstment you have for United and because of this you cannot rationally argue a point or discuss a matter like this with someone who disagrees with you.

Why else would you ignore me when I reply to you are selectively pick apart my posts?

The rivalry is great but it doesnt change the actual truth.

Liverpool are more succesful than United. This is a fact. So to qualify this you say what we have won is worth less because of this this this etc etc etc.

This is what's known in the business as ignorant rationalisation.

Think of the smoker who knows smoking is bad for him. He wont quit because he cannot. Plus his uncle / someone he knows smoked 70 a day and he died of old age or they only smoke light cigarettes so they are not as bad for him.

Emmo

You're way off topic there Emmo. Try PI.

Emmo

PI?

Not sure what that means

Personal insults?

Emmo

The Muppet

16.09.Manchester United - Fc Barcelona 3 - 3.
30.09.Bayern München - Manchester United 2 - 2.
21.10.Brøndby IF - Manchester United 2 - 6.
04.11.Manchester United - Brøndby IF 5 - 0.
25.11.Fc Barcelona - Manchester United 3 - 3.
09.12.Manchester United - Bayern München 1 - 1.
03.03.Manchester United - Inter Milan 2 - 0.QUARTER-FINAL .
17.03.Inter Milan - Manchester United 1 - 1.QUARTER-FINAL .
07.04.Manchester United - Juventus 1 - 1.SEMI - FINALS .
21.04.Juventus - Manchester United 2 - 3.SEMI - FINALS .
26.05.Manchester United - Bayern München 2 - 1.

There you go lads as you were reluctant to post it I have, Uniteds route to the final In 99. Not a sign of crusaders either. Care to convince me that was not tougher that any of Liverpools ones I posted earlier ?

I though not

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

You're way off topic there Emmo. Try PI.

Speak for yourself. All you've been harping on about on this thread is how Shankly never hit the heights of Europe with Liverpool or how Paisley's 3 European Cups are worth sweet FA because YOU think the competition was schoolboy stuff compared to the modern competition. Basically dismissing or demeaning anything ever won by a Liverpool manager. One would think you have a deep phobia of all things Scouse. You're on the wrong forum dude.

Emmo

I posted that already, did you look at what I put up links and everything already!

Who where the giants you beat in the 2nd qualifying round eh?

Emmo

The Muppet

Ardent wrote:

Speak for yourself. All you've been harping on about on this thread is how Shankly never hit the heights of Europe with Liverpool or how Paisley's 3 European Cups are worth sweet FA because YOU think the competition was schoolboy stuff compared to the modern competition. Basically dismissing or demeaning anything ever won by a Liverpool manager. One would think you have a deep phobia of all things Scouse. You're on the wrong forum dude.

You haven't quite got the hang of this discussion forum lark. How it works is you make a post and other people reply with their own opinions either agreeing or disagreeing with you .It is up to you to counter that {it helps if you can back up your argument with facts}. Resorting to insults usually means you have lost the argument If you can't handle that then I suggest it is you that is in the wrong place.

Emmo wrote:

I posted that already, did you look at what I put up links and everything already!

Who where the giants you beat in the 2nd qualifying round eh?

Emmo

Yep Let's ignore Barca Inter Bayern and Juve.

Clever.

Emmo

You must have me on ignore cause your doing everything I said you where doing again and again.

I posted the games United won as you asked then you sneaky edit the post to request the games played.

Why did you leave out beating Lodz? I suppose that would put the Crusaders point way out of context?

and then to say this in your post?

---

How it works is you make a post and other people reply with their own opinions either agreeing or disagreeing with you .It is up to you to counter that {it helps if you can back up your argument with facts}.

---

I honestly think your taking the Mickey Owen.

Emmo

PHB

Considering the fact taht none of you can remember too well either Liverpools matches or Man Utd's matches, and how good the teams were at the time, this is arguing at somewhat cross-purposes

Either way, I think Fergie is better cause I'm a united fan Also he, personally, has won more trophies than any other manager

Tell ya, I'd like to see a best premiership player of all time thread and vote

The Muppet

Emmo wrote:

I posted the games United won as you asked then you sneaky edit the post to request the games played.


Emmo

I certainly did nothing of the sort, that is not my style as anyone that has been around here for any length of time will tell you. I may edit a post that has not been replied to but I do not edit post sneakily.

Emmo

Well in reply to the best player I think it has to be Keane or Shearer. Henry will win it in about 5 years time if he sticks the pace and stays.

In regards to the Muppet,

I included links to all United results, I didnt ignore any of them. You have however chosen to ignore most of the points I have made to the extent I thought you had me on ignore.

3 questions

How is a European Cup where the teams had to win a harder league and then play against unknowns comparible to finishing below the top rank and then playing more games against recognised oppenents compariable.

How does subjective opinion become objective fact in your hands

Can you admit your wrong and see past the red mist?

Emmo

Emmo

Actually sod it I dont care.

In emotive situations people react with emotion rather than with rational approach to subjective figures and objective facts.

Fergie was voted by his peers, cant take that away. Good for him he deserves it after working hard for most of his career.

The judgement surely was influenced by the relative ages of the sucess and other factors but they will not be reveresed no matter how much we argue.

congrats Sir Alex,

Emmo

The Muppet

Emmo wrote:

I included links to all United results, I didnt ignore any of them. You have however chosen to ignore most of the points I have made to the extent I thought you had me on ignore.

3 questions

How is a European Cup where the teams had to win a harder league and then play against unknowns comparible to finishing below the top rank and then playing more games against recognised oppenents compariable.

How does subjective opinion become objective fact in your hands

Can you admit your wrong and see past the red mist?

Emmo

3 answers

I posted my opinion that it is blatently obvious that it is harder to win the CL than it was to win the European cup. I backed that up with my reasoning behind that opinion quotint stats to support it. You and others counter taht woith opinion . Now you say they are incomparibal I dont believe they are.. I repeat it is harder to win the CL than it was The European cup.

I have posted the facts , you choose to ignore them thats your perogative but you have posted nothing that has me thinking my stated opinion may be wrong

That's the usualy reply round here when you cannot support your argument with rational. Read what I said about insults in my previous post.

I'll leave it at that as I have made my point and explained my reasoning I have nothing further to add at the moment and I have no interest in trading insults.

Emmo

I didnt insult anyone.

Sorry if you think I did.

Emmo

alfie

The Muppet wrote:

3 answers

I posted my opinion that it is blatently obvious that it is harder to win the CL than it was to win the European cup. I backed that up with my reasoning behind that opinion quotint stats to support it . You and others counter taht woith opinion . Now you say they are incomparibal I dont believe they are.. I repeat it is harder to win the CL than it was The European cup.

By saying that liverpool only had to win 5 games to win the european cup

The Muppet wrote:

Fact is It was a weaker competition Liverpool won it by winning Just 5 games in 77, how far would that get you now?

and ignoring the point made by emmo/ardent that man u only won 6 and ended up lifting the cl in 99.
Or was it by dismissing teams such as crusaders as being **** just because they are unknown in todays football world.Fact is you have no idea of how good they were in the 70's.You claim to be backing up your arguments here but I fail to see it, seems to be your treating your opinion as fact.
As for my opinion on the best manager of all time I don't think you can seperate shankly,fergie,clough,paisley etc. they were/are all superb managers
and are all equally deserving of it.

The Muppet

alfie wrote:

By saying that liverpool only had to win 5 games to win the european cup

and ignoring the point made by emmo/ardent that man u only won 6 and ended up lifting the cl in 99.
Or was it by dismissing teams such as crusaders as being **** just because they are unknown in todays football world.Fact is you have no idea of how good they were in the 70's.You claim to be backing up your arguments here but I fail to see it, seems to be your treating your opinion as fact.
As for my opinion on the best manager of all time I don't think you can seperate shankly,fergie,clough,paisley etc. they were/are all superb managers
and are all equally deserving of it.

Crusaders? Do you know who they were because I cetainly do, The point I was making for the final time for those of you that obviously missed it was that you could win the European Cup by playing just seven games and in theory winning just four. You have to play the minimum of 11 games to win it today. The standard of fitness and competition is also higher now than it was in the 70's that's fact like it or not.

Heres a link to help you

Emmo

the game is less physical now also so you are allowed more time and space and the ball, thats a fact too.

I dont think you can compere the two competitions like for like.

Emmo

A Dub in Glasgo

This is like the school yard... my dad is bigger than yours malarky

You cannot even come close to comparing football in the '60s and 70s to football now nevermind the European competitions.

MU were the 1st English club to win the European Cup in 1968, does that mean it was piss easy for them back then? Celtic were the 1st British team to win the European cup in 1967, does that mean it was piss easy for them back then?

Clubs can only play against their peers... it is good to remember that

Jivin Turkey

You want facts The Muppet?

The Muppet wrote:

Fergie has won more that twice the amount of silverware than Paisley did and he did it at two clubs building his own squads a number of times , Paisley inherited an already successful team. Ok it took Fergie longer to start winning but his starting point was a lot lower that Paisleys.

AF has been manager of MUFC for 20 years, 8 leagues, 5 cups, 1 league cup, 1 CWC, and 1 CL is his return.

BP was manager for nine years, 6 leagues, 0 cups, 4 league cups, 1 UEFA cup, and 3 European cups is his return.

Bear in mind the standard of the UEFA cup back then was a lot higher. It was a very difficult cup to win (particularly if you compare it with AFs CWC). As would be the case with the league cups (which were all won back to back), and then of course, whether you think the European Cup was harder to win then or not (which Im not denying), 3 of them is much better than 1.

As regards BPs starting point. LFC had won a single title in the previous 9 years. AF took over when United were an established top 4 side, they finished 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, in the seasons prior to him taking charge, whie also winning 2 FA cups. To claim that BP inherited a steam-rolling team, while AF built United from scratch is just wrong. Both inherited good sides, but Im not denying that the LFC team was probably SLIGHTLY better.

To me BPs record, seeing as his reign was less than HALF AFs, is clearly better. Granted LFC probably would have been a little better, but BP made Liverpool the dominant force in Europe, and sustained that for almost a decade, AF has only mounted one (possibly two) decent assaults on the CL, in 12 years of trying. He also only won just two more league title in 12 more years of trying.

The Muppet wrote:

On second thoughs lets not, Paisley won 11 Cups, Fergie has won 25 plus more to come . But Pasiley still wins hands down I suppose. :rolleyes:

Eh.............I dont where you are getting those figures from above.

Would you link them? As mine must be wrong if thats the case. Paisley won 15 major honours in nine years at Liverpool. Fergie has won 16 in 20 years at United. Please dont tell me Muppet you have started including Charity Shields as "trophies won". Besides Paisley also bagged his fair few of them.

As for Fergie having more to come? We'll have to wait and see about that.

The Muppet wrote:

The standard of fitness and competition is also higher now than it was in the 70's that's fact like it or not.

True, but that effects all teams of that era, so it doesnt diminish anything from Liverpools or Paisleys achievements.

On top of all that, AF took a team that were top four, and took them to two 11th place finishes in three years, and was almost sacked. When he finally took United to the top it couldnt have come at a more opportune time. The influx of money to football was beginning to snowball, United as the best team in England at the time, obviously gained more from this than anybody else and deservedly so. The top 3 or 4 leagues in Europe pulled streets ahead of the others, as the others could not compete financially for players etc.

But this wasnt the case when Liverpool were winning league titles in the 70/80s. Making their success in Europe more remarkable.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Good post Jivin.

PHB

here here, Paisley conquered europe, Fergie has not done that. If he does, he will be without dispute the best maanger, but until then, its a hard choice imo, with whichever fan picking their team
Still, I feel by the time he retires, Fergie will be the best manager of all time

The Rooster

Good post Jivin.

I think we should probably leave it there. Those are the facts, and everyone can make their own mind up as to who they think is the best - or perhaps they're just about equal

Muppet certainly lived up to his name on this thread. For one who always takes the high morale ground (its his "style" after all), and breaks all records in the reporting of posts category, he certainly knows how to flame when he wants to.

Pigman II

I agree with Mr. Turkey on this matter. Despite my own personal opinion that it was tougher to win europe pre-ChampionsLeague-era I still think that one european cup with an already massive club is hardly a groundbreaking achievement. If anything his achievements at Aberdeen were more impressive than anything he's done at Utd in the 20 years he's been there.