Fergie Voted Greatest Manager of all time.

LFCFan

there's no way you can compare the European Cup and The Champions League. For a start, it shouldn't be called the 'Champions' League as you don't have to be champions to be in it. So, to win the European Cup, you first had to win your league. Then you were faced with the prospect of going out of the European Cup very early as it was a knockout competition, as opposed to the present format where you could potentially lose your first 3 games and still qualify for the latter stages. You couldn't even get the opportunity to lose your first 3 games in the European Cup as you'd be gone after 2 losses. And I love the way that Muppet only talks about the year we faced Borussia in the final but fails to mention wins against (by todays standards) better opposition like Roma (in Rome aswell). This dicussion/argument has been so typical of a Man U v Liverpool supporter. Man U supporter spouting utter sh1te about stuff they think they know about while the Liverpool supporters telling it as it is. I've stopped some so called Man U supporters dead in their tracks, in the middle of an argument by asking them 1 question. 'Who managed United before Fergie?' It's unreal how many of them haven't a clue, or take a while to figure it out.

Granted, Fergie is a great manager. I have no problem saying that. I mightn't like the man etc etc but I'm not stupid. Other Liverpool supporters in here have also admitted that Fergie is a great manager. Yet the one thing I have yet to see from Muppet is an admission that Paisley was a great manager!!!!

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You want facts The Muppet?
whether you think the European Cup was harder to win then or not (which Im not denying),

That was the core point of the discusssion yesterday and I am happy to see you can see past your club loyalties and admit that what I was saying was right. IE it is harder to win the CL than it was to win the EC.

Regarding Bob Pasiley being The best Managerand the rest of your post well thats down to opinion. In mine Fergie is the best Manager of all time , The league managers happen to agree with that and Brian Clough came in second. Bob Paisely was third.

You can argue all you like but thats how the poll turned out , Now I will really leave it at that this as theres not much point in arguing about indivudals opinion on such a subject as none of us are likely to change our opinion.


BTW you asked for teh source for my figures re trophiies won . Here you go. Pretty conclusive stuff I think.

As you can see I wasn't including the Charity Shields{ but it is a trophy}. and I had missed a couple

Bob Paisley

1975-76 - League Champions, UEFA Cup
1976-77 - League Champions, European Cup,
1977-78 - European Cup, European Super Cup,
1978-79 - League Champions
1979-80 - League Champions
1980-81 - European Cup, League Cup
1981-82 - League Champions, League Cup
1982-83 - League Champions, League Cup




Alex Ferguson

1980 Scottish Championship
1982 Scottish Cup
1983 Scottish Cup, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1984 Scottish Championship, Scottish Cup
1985 Scottish Championship
1986 Scottish Cup, Scottish League Cup:
1990 FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1991 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup , European Super Cup
1992 League Cup
1993 Premiership, FA Charity Shield
1994, Premiership, FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1996 Premiership , FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1997, Premiership , FA Charity Shield
1999, Premiership , FA Cup, UEFA Champions League:, Inter-Continental Club Cup:
2000, Premiership
2001, Premiership
2003; Premiership
2004 FA Cup

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

Now I will really leave it at that

There is a god..!

Jivin Turkey

Sorry for resurrecting the thread, but I just want one last reply.

The Muppet wrote:

Regarding Bob Pasiley being The best Managerand the rest of your post well thats down to opinion. In mine Fergie is the best Manager of all time , The league managers happen to agree with that and Brian Clough came in second. Bob Paisely was third.

You can argue all you like but thats how the poll turned out , Now I will really leave it at that this as theres not much point in arguing about indivudals opinion on such a subject as none of us are likely to change our opinion.

Its down to opinion, but if I say that, in my opinion 2 + 2 = 5, my opinion is well......wrong.

And while Im not arguing that the league managers didnt vote AF as the greatest English club manager of all time, I am saying that I think they are incorrect. This could have happened for a number of reasons, the fact that some of the new and foreign coaches may not even remember BP as a manager is surely a contributing factor.

In your own words Bill Shankly never took Liverpool to the "heights of Europe", therefore it must have been Paisley. And not only did he take them there, he established them as undisputed number one, and even after his departure the team went on to back to back finals before being banned.

The following year arguably the best ever Liverpool team won the double but could not play in Europe. We will never be able to tell how long Liverpool could have dominated Europe because of the ban, so I guess we will just have to leave it at the 9 years that they actually did. This was the team that Paisley built.

In the 12 years Fergie has had access to the CL, they have had one final appearance, and two semi appearances. Despite the "more challenging" system, its not a good enough return for "the best of all time".

The Muppet wrote:

BTW you asked for teh source for my figures re trophiies won . Here you go. Pretty conclusive stuff I think.

As you can see I wasn't including the Charity Shields{ but it is a trophy}. and I had missed a couple

Bob Paisley

1975-76 - League Champions, UEFA Cup
1976-77 - League Champions, European Cup,
1977-78 - European Cup, European Super Cup,
1978-79 - League Champions
1979-80 - League Champions
1980-81 - European Cup, League Cup
1981-82 - League Champions, League Cup
1982-83 - League Champions, League Cup




Alex Ferguson

1980 Scottish Championship
1982 Scottish Cup
1983 Scottish Cup, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1984 Scottish Championship, Scottish Cup
1985 Scottish Championship
1986 Scottish Cup, Scottish League Cup:
1990 FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1991 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup , European Super Cup
1992 League Cup
1993 Premiership, FA Charity Shield
1994, Premiership, FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1996 Premiership , FA Cup, FA Charity Shield
1997, Premiership , FA Charity Shield
1999, Premiership , FA Cup, UEFA Champions League:, Inter-Continental Club Cup:
2000, Premiership
2001, Premiership
2003; Premiership
2004 FA Cup

Just to let you know I wasnt questioning your figures, I was just wondering why there were inconsistencies into both our figures. I see it was because you included the cups won in Scotland, and a few miscalculations on my part, I think!

However, the poll was for the "best manager of an English club of all time". His accolades in Scotland should not count for anything in this discussion. Same way no one has included Jose Mourinho's incredible achievements prior to his move to London.

Based on achievements at English clubs, if it is your opinion that (lets talk about what I know both of us would consider "real" trophies) 8 league titles, 5 FA cups, 1 League cup, a Champions League, and a Cup Winners Cup, in 20 years, is a better achievement than 6 leagues, 3 League cups, 3 European Cups, and a UEFA cup, in 9 years, I whole heartedly accept that. I just think its wrong.

Paisley won all that in a year less than it took Ferguson to win his FIRST title. How much do you think he would have won if he stayed the same 20 years??? As a Liverpool fan (which I can swear has no bearing on my opinion), I can only imagine.

Ardent

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I see it was because you included the cups won in Scotland, and a few miscalculations on my part, I think!

However, the poll was for the "best manager of an English club of all time". His accolades in Scotland should not count for anything in this discussion.

You're wasting your time dude. He's clearly on a wind-up mission.

LFCFan

Jivin Turkey wrote:

How much do you think he would have won if he stayed the same 20 years??? As a Liverpool fan (which I can swear has no bearing on my opinion), I can only imagine.

That's the stuff that dreams are made of

SteM

Ardent wrote:

You're wasting your time dude. He's clearly on a wind-up mission.

I don't understand this sort of attitude. How can expressing ones opinion and then trying to back that opinion up with facts be 'on a wind-up mission'?

Just becuase 2 people disagree it doesn't mean that one is winding to other up. It would seem to me that you're trying to provike a reaction now.

Ardent

The Muppet has been comparing Ferguson and Paisley's respective achievements with an English club by including the trophies won by Ferguson during his time at Aberdeen, a Scottish club. It was mildly amusing at first but not after 5 pages or so. He either missed the main thrust of the article he himself posted or he wants to distort the facts to support his own point of view.

In addition, as if to further back Ferguson, he totally discounts the acheivements of Paisley in Europe by deeming the European Cup a weaker competition back then. Now, I don't see any facts there, just lots of supposition and bias, and that's why I think he's on a wind-up mission.

A Dub in Glasgo

I even asked if the win by Man United in 1968 to become the 1st English club to win the European Cup can be similarly dismissed as it was easy to win back then

SteM

Ardent wrote:

The Muppet has been comparing Ferguson and Paisley's respective achievements with an English club by including the trophies won by Ferguson during his time at Aberdeen, a Scottish club. It was mildly amusing at first but not after 5 pages or so. He either missed the main thrust of the article he himself posted or he wants to distort the facts to support his own point of view.

In addition, as if to further back Ferguson, he totally discounts the acheivements of Paisley in Europe by deeming the European Cup a weaker competition back then. Now, I don't see any facts there, just lots of supposition and bias, and that's why I think he's on a wind-up mission.

If someone says

Now I will really leave it at that this as theres not much point in arguing about indivudals opinion on such a subject as none of us are likely to change our opinion.

but someone else continues to provoke them by saying they're on a wind up mission then that looks like they're trying to provoke a reaction.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

And while Im not arguing that the league managers didnt vote AF as the greatest English club manager of all time, I am saying that I think they are i...................................................................................

IMO there are very few if any Managers that would not remember Paisley .Shankly and Busby orat least be unaware of their achievements,, I would also remind you that this was a poll of all the leagues managers not just the premiership so the number of foreign managers is quite small and so unlikely to make much of a difference to the end result.


Just to explain my comments on Shanks. Someone posted that Shankly had taken Liverpool to the heights of europe. I took that to mean that he had won the European cup it being the most prestigeous european competition. As you know Shanklys liverpool never won the European cup and thats why I asked for clarification.

Liverpool did not dominate europe for 9 years, I think Forest fans may take you to task there. It is my opinion that the standard of football in England at the time was way ahead of Europe. English teams dominated Europe in fact I believe it was harder to win the league than it was to win the European Cup at the time. That is definitely no longer the case, again I say that the old European cup is a shadow of the current champions league.

You want to discount Fergies achievement in Scotland and discount the Charity Shield as a trophy, I would argue that they would definitely have been taken into consideration by the Managers in the poll . Whatever about the Charity Shield (it's intersting you did not discount Paisleys Supercups for the same reasons] to discount his Aberdeen achievemenst would be using flawed logic to come to a conclusion IMO .

Why should his Scottish achievements be discounted, they are a factor . Surely when considering the greatest manager of all time you take the whole picture into consideration and not just a fraction of the facts. As I said to do so would be using flawed logic and you can do that if you want but don't ask me to agree with you.

As for Paisly winning it quicker that just demonstrates that Paisley inherited a team that was already top class. Fergie had to built a team which took him five years, IMO evidence that Fergie was the better manager. I include a quote from emlyn hughes from the second page of this thread to support my point that Paisley inherited a great team.

Emmo wrote:

To quote Emelyn Hughes

"I remember walking up those steps to lift the cup and I felt privileged to do so. I was not thinking about myself, Kevin Keegan or the rest of the lads who’d just won the match. The names that were flashing through my mind were the likes of Roger Hunt, Ian St John and Ron Yeats, Shanks and Rueben Bennett. These were the men who had given us the chance to win the European Cup and who had put us in the position that we were in. As I reached out to collect the cup I knew that it was as much for them as for us."

Emmo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I even asked if the win by Man United in 1968 to become the 1st English club to win the European Cup can be similarly dismissed as it was easy to win back then

The obvious answer to that question is yes. TBH the question demonstrates the attitude of certain users here who will change their opinion from minute to minute in order to point score over other users. I could give at least two examples of it from this thread, one of them surprisingly from a United supporter , I will never do that, I will continue to give my honest opinions , I have no interest in point scoring or baiting people.

Ardent wrote:

In addition, as if to further back Ferguson, he totally discounts the acheivements of Paisley in Europe by deeming the European Cup a weaker competition back then. Now, I don't see any facts there, just lots of supposition and bias, and that's why I think he's on a wind-up mission.

Well the you didn't read my posts. I posted tthe fixture list for liverpoll in 77 and 78 and United in 99 to demonstated how much tougher it is to win now. I don't see how anyone can argue against that point , In fact to his credit Jiving Turkey conceded it. Again I have no interest in winding anyone up but I am not going to go against my opinion just to agree with you or anyone else.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Muppet wrote:

I

The obvious answer to that question is yes. TBH the question demonstrates the attitude of certain users here who will change their opinion from minute to minute in order to point score over other users. I could give at least two examples of it from this thread, one of them surprisingly from a United supporter , I will never do that, I will continue to give my honest opinions , I have no interest in point scoring or baiting people.

The question from me does not demonstrate an attitude of changing opinions from minute to minute or baiting. It is a valid question based on your assumption that winning the EC was easy back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. It naturally follows that the great milestone in Man Uniteds history and the history of English football is somehow diminished because they won the EC in 1968 - an era where it was 'easy' to win the EC.

I think my opinion during this thread has stayed consistant. I even recognised the difference between best manager in Britain and the best manager in England. For the England bit, it is not really sporting to include the performance of a manager when he was managing in another part of Britain. I also stated that the only fair comparison was against a teams peers rather than across decades.

The Muppet

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It naturally follows that the great milestone in Man Uniteds history and the history of English football is somehow diminished because they won the EC in 1968 - an era where it was 'easy' to win the EC.

See there you go again trying to point score by twisting what I said. It's either that or some people here have difficuly reading. I never said it was "easy" I said it was easier than it is now. Do you disagree with that and if so care to explain why?

A Dub in Glasgo

ADIG wrote:

I even asked if the win by Man United in 1968 to become the 1st English club to win the European Cup can be similarly dismissed as it was easy to win back then

The Muppet wrote:

The obvious answer to that question is yes.

I may have picked you up wrong.

I have no real idea if it is any easier. All i know is the fact that people cannot accurately compare teams from across the decades. If a team won the EC in 1968 then that team were at the pinnacle of European footall at that time. Everything has changed since then and MU would not have even got a sniff of winning the CL in 1999 if the rules where the same.

You are basing your whole stance on your belief that Liverpools 3 EC wins where less of an achievement than Fergusans 1 CL trimuph because it was easier to win the EC. I have seen nothing to accept that stance. I am not a Liverpool supporter at all and if I was to choose a team in England, i would pick Man United. I think you are doing a dis-service to all the teams that won the highest prize in Europe before the advent of the CL.

Ardent

The Muppet wrote:

Well the you didn't read my posts. I posted tthe fixture list for liverpoll in 77 and 78 and United in 99 to demonstated how much tougher it is to win now. I don't see how anyone can argue against that point

Firstly, your point, for whatever purpose it's meant to serve, is very disrespectful to the great teams who have won the European Cup down through the decades, from the mighty Real Madrid teams, Ajax, Bayern etc to the likes of Celtic, Notts Forest and Aston Villa. Secondly, it's irrelevant because I think most people who know their football realise that the strength of a competition is decided on the quality of the teams competing in it, not the simplistic tallying up of fixtures required to win it.

dirkey_wynne

Right, I've stayed silent on this long enough. Realistically guys, what is the point of arguing about this? The fact is, Sir Alex topped this poll, voted by his peers. Would they know better than us as to whether Sir Alex/Cloughie/Paisley/Shankly/Busby etc is the best? Yes they would. Why? They have experience in the job. One of the biggest factors, I would imagine, is the longevity of Sir Alex in that job. They know the pressures. I have no doubt this was a big factor for some of them. To last as long as he has done is outstanding. And to be up there at the top of the tree for most of this time speaks volumes doesn't it?

But does that mean it's a greater achievement than those who have gone before? I don't know. I have never worked in that environment. How can you compare? I don't think you can. I am certainly not in a position to judge. Neither is The Muppet. Neither is Jivin Turkey. Who is? A manager. A manager of a professional football club in England. And judge they did, putting Sir Alex top.

Do I agree? Honestly, no. I'm a Utd fan for those who don't know. Put Cloughie in Sir Alex shoes - joining that side when he did. Would he have won as much as Sir Alex, and have built Utd into the club they are? Who knows. Vice versa - Fergie at Forest. Who knows. Different eras, different clubs, different styles, different outcomes.

Some of the arguments in here have been hilarious imo. The way I see it, it's only the managers, of England who can decide, as they have first hand experience of the task for which they are voting.

But I agree with ppl here, that those who are voting, definitely some will vote for Fergie as they don't fully remember the others achievements.

To cut a long story short, I think the opinions of this are all a bit pointless really. I think you can't compare, but what you can say is they were all unbelievably top quality managers, who deserve to all be mentioned in the same breath.

The Muppet

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I may have picked you up wrong.
You are basing your whole stance on your belief that Liverpools 3 EC wins where less of an achievement than Fergusans 1 CL trimuph

Show me where I said that.

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

Show me where I said that.

You've obviously already had a chance to remove it from your previous post

By the way, when are you going to admit that this whole thread has been an elaborate and pre-meditated April Fools joke?

TheMonster

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Right, I've stayed silent on this long enough. Realistically guys, what is the point of arguing about this? The fact is, Sir Alex topped this poll, voted by his peers. Would they know better than us as to whether Sir Alex/Cloughie/Paisley/Shankly/Busby etc is the best? Yes they would. Why? They have experience in the job. One of the biggest factors, I would imagine, is the longevity of Sir Alex in that job. They know the pressures. I have no doubt this was a big factor for some of them. To last as long as he has done is outstanding. And to be up there at the top of the tree for most of this time speaks volumes doesn't it?

But does that mean it's a greater achievement than those who have gone before? I don't know. I have never worked in that environment. How can you compare? I don't think you can. I am certainly not in a position to judge. Neither is The Muppet. Neither is Jivin Turkey. Who is? A manager. A manager of a professional football club in England. And judge they did, putting Sir Alex top.

Do I agree? Honestly, no. I'm a Utd fan for those who don't know. Put Cloughie in Sir Alex shoes - joining that side when he did. Would he have won as much as Sir Alex, and have built Utd into the club they are? Who knows. Vice versa - Fergie at Forest. Who knows. Different eras, different clubs, different styles, different outcomes.

Some of the arguments in here have been hilarious imo. The way I see it, it's only the managers, of England who can decide, as they have first hand experience of the task for which they are voting.

But I agree with ppl here, that those who are voting, definitely some will vote for Fergie as they don't fully remember the others achievements.

To cut a long story short, I think the opinions of this are all a bit pointless really. I think you can't compare, but what you can say is they were all unbelievably top quality managers, who deserve to all be mentioned in the same breath.

Well said - I fully agree with you. It was voted by all the current English managers who just might just know a little more about what the job entails(than a few posters on an Irish foorball forum) :rolleyes: and most if not all are def old enough to know about the 60s/70s/80s etc.

People will never agree on this and its obvious that Liverpool fans will try and belittle Fergies/Busbies achievements and vice versa regarding Utd fans and Pool managers.

Take it

I cant see how people try to compair the old european cup to the CL the fact is YOU CANT for the simple reason being that united WOULD NOT have won the CL in '99 if it was based on the old rules of the european cup as they did not win the league the previous year.

Im not trying to say one is better then the other but i am trying to say compairing them is impossible.

The Muppet

TheMonster wrote:

People will never agree on this and its obvious that Liverpool fans will try and belittle Fergies/Busbies achievements and vice versa regarding Utd fans and Pool managers.

Indeed they will if you let them. Welcome to the soccer forum TheMonster we nearly have enough Utd Supporters here for a bloodless coup now.

The Muppet

Take it wrote:

I cant see how people try to compair the old european cup to the CL the fact is YOU CANT for the simple reason being that united WOULD NOT have won the CL in '99 if it was based on the old rules of the european cup as they did not win the league the previous year.

Im not trying to say one is better then the other but i am trying to say compairing them is impossible.

BTW The Champions League replaced the European Cup. They just changed the format. Of course they can be compared just like the premiership can be compare to its predecessor. As we are forever being told Football didn't just start in1992 you know. Thats funny too those that usualy use that point are the ones trying to disregard Fergies pre 92 achievement in this discussion.

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

Thats funny too those that usualy use that point are the ones trying to disregard Fergies pre 92 achievement in this discussion.

I'd never disregard Fergies pre 92 achevements, it's what gave us hope for so long the GH might actually achieve something worthwhile. Ah well, the sea-gulls have all left the port now...

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

I'd never disregard Fergies pre 92 achevements, it's what gave us hope for so long the GH might actually achieve something worthwhile. Ah well, the sea-gulls have all left the port now...

LOL, AH the good old days of GH, Oh how I miss them.

pickarooney

Anyone have any idea of the average tenure of a Premiership manager nowadays compared with in the 70s/80s? Or the average squad size? Nobody seems to be talking about anything apart from trophies, which is fair enough, it's what every manager will be remembered for, but there a lot more factors to consider - financial management, man management, the great buys and the terrible purchases. IMO, gaining promotion twice in succession is a better achievement than winning the league with a strong side, but then you have to consider how this was achieved - with hard graft or hard cash.
The award is also a bit ambiguous wrt managing an English club. If a manager with 5 Serie A titles and 3 European cups took over at Newcastle, he would technically be a great manager of an English club, despite not (yet) having won anything with that English club.

For the record, I didn't see anything like enough of Clough, Shankley or Paisley's teams to be able to compare them to Ferguson or Robson, so from what I know I'd pick Ferguson for his achievements in England and Robson for his success in several countries and at international level.

Take it

no im not discrediting fergy at all im saying HOW can you compair a cup that only allowed CHAMPIONS into the cup against a cup that lets teams that come forth into the cup? how can you compair a cup that was TOTAL knock out, to a cup that you can lose home and away to a team and still go through? i dont think you can, as for you constantly going on about ppl discrediting fergy at the same time your descrediting Paisley? Why? your whole point here is that you now have to play more games?? so that makes a cup better? how? if they extend the FA cup and put the premiership teams in at round one will this make it a better cup as theres more games??

i dont think you can you can compair them, of course you can compair the Premiership to the division 1 they didnt change the rules as to who gets in or how people win it but they did when the european cup changed to the CL

The Muppet

Take it wrote:

-Why? your whole point here is that you now have to play more games?? so that makes a cup better? how? if they extend the FA cup and put the premiership teams in at round one will this make it a better cup as theres more games??

you're nearly there but I didn't say anthing about it being better , I said it was harder to win having the top 3 or four teams from the top leagues instead of the first from every league even Northern Ireland [crusaders]. Its obvious really when you think of it.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

IMO there are very few if any Managers that would not remember Paisley .Shankly and Busby orat least be unaware of their achievements,, I would also remind you that this was a poll of all the leagues managers not just the premiership so the number of foreign managers is quite small and so unlikely to make much of a difference to the end result.

No one is doubting that the league managers voted this. We are discussing here, as members of boards, who we think is the best. I dont know why people keep on bringing them up.

The Muppet wrote:

Just to explain my comments on Shanks. Someone posted that Shankly had taken Liverpool to the heights of europe. I took that to mean that he had won the European cup it being the most prestigeous european competition. As you know Shanklys liverpool never won the European cup and thats why I asked for clarification.

I know, but I agree that Shankly never took Liverpool to the "heights of Europe" (i.e. top of the European Cup) in actual fact he never made it past the second round of it. It was Paisleys doing.

The Muppet wrote:

Liverpool did not dominate europe for 9 years, I think Forest fans may take you to task there. It is my opinion that the standard of football in England at the time was way ahead of Europe. English teams dominated Europe in fact I believe it was harder to win the league than it was to win the European Cup at the time. That is definitely no longer the case, again I say that the old European cup is a shadow of the current champions league.

Liverpool reached 5 finals (winning 4), 2 quarter finals, lost to Notts Forest the year they won it, and lost once poorly in the first round, over a 9 year period. That is dominance.

To add to that, they also lifted the UEFA cup the year prior to this 9 year strecth.

The Muppet wrote:

You want to discount Fergies achievement in Scotland and discount the Charity Shield as a trophy, I would argue that they would definitely have been taken into consideration by the Managers in the poll . Whatever about the Charity Shield (it's intersting you did not discount Paisleys Supercups for the same reasons] to discount his Aberdeen achievemenst would be using flawed logic to come to a conclusion IMO .

I want to discount Charity Shields because they are not a real trophy. But for the record Paisley won 5 in his time at Liverpool.

I didnt include Paisleys Supercup win in any calculation either, so I dont know what you are talking about there, as again, its not a real trophy, its a ceremonial piece of crap.

As regards Aberdeen, to discount achievements with Aberdeen while assessing the best manager of an English club is not flawed! How could it possibly be? Are you actually reading what you are saying? Aberdeen have nothing to do with the English game, and by that logic surely we should award the "best manager of an English club" award to Fabio Capello. After all he won CLs with numerous clubs, and is going for another this year. But wait, that would be idiotic, because it has nothing to do with an English club!

The Muppet wrote:

Why should his Scottish achievements be discounted, they are a factor . Surely when considering the greatest manager of all time you take the whole picture into consideration and not just a fraction of the facts. As I said to do so would be using flawed logic and you can do that if you want but don't ask me to agree with you.

See above as regards this discussion, Aberdeen means nothing to the English game. I cant believe you think its flawed to exclude it. It is flawed to include it, FACT not opinion.

And it kind of looks to me there that you are claiming that AF is the best manager of all time, ever, in the whole world. Please dont tell me you just said that.

The Muppet wrote:

As for Paisly winning it quicker that just demonstrates that Paisley inherited a team that was already top class. Fergie had to built a team which took him five years, IMO evidence that Fergie was the better manager.

Why does that demonstrate it? Surely it would only do so if they were of the exact same ability but BP did it quicker cos he had a better team.

Ive illustrated already that there was very little in terms of league position (and recent trophies won) between the two sides, did you not read it? Yes Ill conceed that Liverpool were better, but they were not so much better that Paisley could achieve more in 9 years than Fergie did in 20.

And it took Fergie more than 5 years to build his team, it took them 8 to win the title (and let me reiterate Paisley had two European Cups in the bag in half that time). And they got a hell of a lot worse (2 11th place finishes) before it got better. Hey who knows, and all joking aside, even Gerrard Houllier probably would have finally got it right after 8 years.

The Muppet wrote:

I include a quote from emlyn hughes from the second page of this thread to support my point that Paisley inherited a great team.

I am not doubting that Shankly did some of the ground work at Liverpool, that quote simply illustrates that Hughes acknowledged it. However Paisley was in charge 3 full years by the time they lifted the European Cup, it was his team.

As if this doesnt happen everywhere anyway, the ironic thing is think back to the player that lifted Uniteds first premiership, and their first double the following year. He had a lot to thank the previous manager for. He wouldnt have been a United player if it wasnt for him. Swings both ways.

One final question, what has Ferguson achieved that Paisley hasnt? Look at the facts he has won 2 more league titles, he has won 2 less European Cups, he is in the job 12 more years than Paisley. For what reasons do you think he has achieved more than Paisley? Was it his open cheque book? His consistent failures in Europe? I just cant think of anything he has done that Paisley didnt.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

No one is doubting that the league managers voted this. We are discussing here, as members of boards, who we think is the best. I dont know why people keep on bringing them up.
..........................................................................

I have already addressed all thos points in previous posts so there is no poing in repeating myself yet again. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on time scale which is irrelevant to the question really. There is no timescale involved.

Its true that the poll was for the best manager of an English club , which Fergie is so to discount half of his achievement is Flawed logic what every way you look it. It does not give the whole picture of Fergie the Mnanger if you discount half of his achievements, after all it was those achievement that got him the job at United.

I think the poll is spot on and the best is Fergie, Clough, Paisley in that order, that is my opinion and the opinion of the Managers whos live and breathe football I respect your opinion but I think you can not see past your club loyalties at the complete picture.

I really do think we should leave it at that and agree to differ as I don't think either of us can bring anything new to the discussion.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I have already addressed all thos points in previous posts so there is no poing in repeating myself yet again.

In the only post you made directly comparing AF to BPs achievements you made claims that AF won more than "twice the amount of silverware than Paisley" and "Fergie longer to start winning but his starting point was a lot lower that Paisleys", both of which are incorrect (even if you include the silverware AF won at Aberdeen), as I have illustrated.

But instead of trying to address my points individually you just claim thats its been argued to death, you dont want to repeat yourself, and that is your opinion.

The Muppet wrote:

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on time scale which is irrelevant to the question really. There is no timescale involved.

Yes timescale means nothing :rolleyes: Thats why we can also conclude that Emile Heskey or Kevin Philips is a more prolific Premiership goalscorer than Ruud Van Nistelrooy. Its nothing to do with the former being around longer than the latter, they were just better finishers.

The Muppet wrote:

Its true that the poll was for the best manager of an English club , which Fergie is so to discount half of his achievement is Flawed logic what every way you look it. It does not give the whole picture of Fergie the Mnanger if you discount half of his achievements, after all it was those achievement that got him the job at United.

Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself here? Why not give it to Fabio Capello?

The Muppet wrote:

I think you can not see past your club loyalties at the complete picture.

Dont come on here and be so condescending. Especially seeing as you obviously dont read some of your own posts.

To me Clough probably edges the overall poll, the only reservation with that would be that he probably went on too long and left Forest in a fairly awful position. But to do what he did was just unreal.

Im just arguing that Paisley is ahead of Fergie.

The Muppet wrote:

I really do think we should leave it at that and agree to differ as I don't think either of us can bring anything new to the discussion.

Ive brought a couple of new things such as United being in extremely good shape when Fergie took over, which you havnt acknowledged. Paisley making Liverpool the most dominant team in Europe for almost a decade, which you denied, so I had to post up the proof, which you also failed to acknowledge.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree, which doesnt bother me, because I am not backing the guy who despite managing the richest club in the world and having an open cheque book, has consistently continued to show his chronic tactical naivety of the European game. Im backing the lad who won the top trophy three times in nine years.

/edit and I still cant believe you think Im backing Paisley, because "I cant see past my club loyalties at the big picture". You should really read some of your own posts. As Ive said, Id probably give my number 1 vote to Clough!

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

To me Clough probably edges the overall poll,

...............................................................



Paisley making Liverpool the most dominant team in Europe for almost a decade, which you denied, so I had to post up the proof, which you also failed to acknowledge.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree, which doesnt bother me, because I am not backing the guy who despite managing the richest club in the world and having an open cheque book, has consistently continued to show his chronic tactical naivety of the European game. Im backing the lad who won the top trophy three times in nine years.

!

Lol you accuse me of contradicting myself and then you do exactly that in the same post.

BTW what you said was that Liverpool dominated Europe for a decade I see your back peddeling from that now to say they were a dominant team a subtle difference in language but a big difference in meaning.

Jivin Turkey wrote:

We will never be able to tell how long Liverpool could have dominated Europe because of the ban, so I guess we will just have to leave it at the 9 years that they actually did.

Jiving Turkey wrote:

Paisley making Liverpool the most dominant team in Europe for almost a decade, which you denied, so I had to post up the proof, which you also failed to acknowledge.

It's funny that you're pick Cloughie ahead of Paisley yet you said earlier Liverpool dominated Europe at the time Clough was managing. You wouldn't be playing to the gallery now would you? You should read what I said earlier about people changing their mind from minute to minute in order to point score. Liverpool were a dominant team in Europe but they never dominated it, there is quite a difference. Forest domintated it for 3 years in that decade and Villa won it as well.

I do agee with you that Clough deserved to be ahead of Paisley .

I'm definitelly leaving it at that, you can have your reply but I will not be replying to that so don't bother asking me any questions. As you obviously can not see past your club loyalties we'll have to agree to differ.

PS when did Capolla manage an English club.? Flawed logic in evidence again I'm afraid.

nlgbbbblth

Badabing wrote:

Should be Jock Stein, Celtic first british team to win european cup, all players born in glasgow or just outside and celtic won the Quaddruple

And here's me thinking that Celtic were an Irish team :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

nlgbbbblth wrote:

And here's me thinking that Celtic were an Irish team :rolleyes:

How come you had initially and then changed it to :rolleyes:

What is the point of even posting the above in this thread :rolleyes:

nlgbbbblth

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

How come you had initially and then changed it to :rolleyes:

had no glasses on

relax, I'm only winding you up

dirkey_wynne

Jivin Turkey wrote:

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree, which doesnt bother me, because I am not backing the guy who despite managing the richest club in the world and having an open cheque book, has consistently continued to show his chronic tactical naivety of the European game. Im backing the lad who won the top trophy three times in nine years.

Ok, so far I haven't responded to individual posts, and have no problem with your opinions Jivin, but to state "open cheque book" in relation to Fergie, well it's just plain wrong. Look at this season - we buy Rooney, and Fergie is told, that's your budget gone for next year, you must sell to buy. That is not an open cheque book. Where you must balance the books cannot be stated to be open cheque book, plain and simple. The only manager with an open cheque book in the game, is Jose Mourinho.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Lol you accuse me of contradicting myself and then you do exactly that in the same post.

Youve highlighted where I said he won it three times in nine years, how is that contradictory? I was talking about AF being tactically naive in the paragraph, are you trying to say that BP was naive the six times he didnt win it

The Muppet wrote:

BTW what you said was that Liverpool dominated Europe for a decade I see your back peddeling from that now to say they were a dominant team a subtle difference in language but a big difference in meaning.

Ah I see, the trusted old tactic seeing as you cant pick flaws in the facts I present, you'll just try and pick technical ones out of the language I use.

"the most dominant team" = "dominated"

A bit of an English lesson here: The most dominant team in Europe for 9 years, dominated Europe for 9 years. No back peddling there.

The Muppet wrote:

It's funny that you're pick Cloughie ahead of Paisley yet you said earlier Liverpool dominated Europe at the time Clough was managing. You wouldn't be playing to the gallery now would you? You should read what I said earlier about people changing their mind from minute to minute in order to point score. Liverpool were a dominant team in Europe but they never dominated it, there is quite a difference. Forest domintated it for 3 years in that decade and Villa won it as well.

Liverpool were the most dominant team in Europe, sorry Liverpool dominated Europe , over a 9 year period. Clough took an unfashionable Forest to the top of the tree for a two year period. Beating Liverpool one year, but Liverpool were there before Forest, during Forests glory days, and after Forest.

I have fully accepted that Paisley inherited a strong side, but Clough however did not. He led a second division Forest to European Champions. He also led a second divsion Derby County to the EC semis. Thats why I think he is one of the greats.

Im not choosing Clough to score any points, to be honest, Im not that concerned with what my internet friends think of me. Im giving my honest opinion, and I have my ears open if people want to illustrate to me that my opinion is wrong by presenting facts to me.

The Muppet wrote:

I'm definitelly leaving it at that, you can have your reply but I will not be replying to that so don't bother asking me any questions. As you obviously can not see past your club loyalties we'll have to agree to differ.

Fine, again in your post you have failed to acknowledge any of the new points I have brought to the table. You have just tried to fault my argument on technicalities. If you show me why Ferguson was a better manager than Paisley I will hold up my hands. I have shown you why the opposite is the case, but you wont achknowledge that. You can claim its because I cant see past my "club loyalties", but I think its plain to see for everyone else that that is your problem.

I follow Liverpool, but Im not childish enough (nor would I even care enough) to just argue that one of their previous managers was the best, just because I follow them.

The Muppet wrote:

PS when did Capolla manage an English club.? Flawed logic in evidence again I'm afraid.

:rolleyes: Youre damn right its flawed. But seeing as in your opinion, the "greatest manager of an English club" should be decided based on trophies won outside England, he would definately be in with a chance.

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Ok, so far I haven't responded to individual posts, and have no problem with your opinions Jivin, but to state "open cheque book" in relation to Fergie, well it's just plain wrong. Look at this season - we buy Rooney, and Fergie is told, that's your budget gone for next year, you must sell to buy. That is not an open cheque book. Where you must balance the books cannot be stated to be open cheque book, plain and simple. The only manager with an open cheque book in the game, is Jose Mourinho.

Plain wrong? How many times in the last ten years has Fergie broken the various English transfer records? 6? 7?

United have blown all their money on the £30M Rooney? Do you really think that United are not going to spend a penny in the Summer? :rolleyes: They were already linked with a move for Casillas, he would cost about £10M, if they bought him he would be the most expensive goalkeeper ever bought by an English club.

And in typical fashion, a United fan gets in a dig about Chelsea at the end. That brings nothing to the discussion. Why did you bother saying that? Rhetorical question.

dirkey_wynne

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Plain wrong? How many times in the last ten years has Fergie broken the various English transfer records? 6? 7?

United have blown all their money on the £30M Rooney? Do you really think that United are not going to spend a penny in the Summer? :rolleyes: They were already linked with a move for Casillas, he would cost about £10M, if they bought him he would be the most expensive goalkeeper ever bought by an English club.

And in typical fashion, a United fan gets in a dig about Chelsea at the end. That brings nothing to the discussion. Why did you bother saying that? Rhetorical question.

Em, it's not a dig at Chelsea at all. It's a fact, it doesn't overly bother me, it's the way things are. He has an open cheque book - do you think Roman is telling him he must sell to balance the books? I don't.

Now, yes, we have broken the record on numerous occasions. But we have also sold top players, for big fees - have we not? To me, an open cheque book means the manager can go out and buy whoever he wants, at whatever cost - do you agree with me on that? Because Fergie cannot do that. Numerous times over hte years he has been stimied trying to get players due to the boards book balancing.

But it seems to me you regard an open cheque book as being able to make a record signing every once in a while. I don't. I view it like i said.

Oh, and yeah, we've been linked with Casillas. Must mean he's on the way. Papers are always right. lol.

Jivin Turkey

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Em, it's not a dig at Chelsea at all. It's a fact, it doesn't overly bother me, it's the way things are. He has an open cheque book - do you think Roman is telling him he must sell to balance the books? I don't.

It is a fact, but its of no relevance to the debate. It was obviously a dig at them seeing as it served no other purpose.

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Now, yes, we have broken the record on numerous occasions. But we have also sold top players, for big fees - have we not? To me, an open cheque book means the manager can go out and buy whoever he wants, at whatever cost - do you agree with me on that? Because Fergie cannot do that. Numerous times over hte years he has been stimied trying to get players due to the boards book balancing.

To me a manager with an open cheque book is any manager that is spending big year in year out. Ferguson is one of those managers.

Also sold top players? Who? Beckham and Veron. Both were sold because Ferguson didnt want them there anymore. It wasnt because he was forced to.

dirkey_wynne wrote:

But it seems to me you regard an open cheque book as being able to make a record signing every once in a while. I don't. I view it like i said.

7 or so times in ten to twelve years isnt "once in a while", its regularly. But forget about my phrasing for a second. My point is Ferguson can, has, does and will again spend big. This has been the case since even before they won their first title.

This is because United have become the most successful team during a time when the best teams are being rewarded proportionately greater than they used to be. Its not his fault, and I wouldnt expect him to not spend, but its a fact. And that must be taken into account in assessing the job he has done in comparison to other managers who did not have such immense resources.

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Oh, and yeah, we've been linked with Casillas. Must mean he's on the way. Papers are always right. lol.

If you actually read what I said, I didnt say he was on the way, I said he was linked. But it was just in response to your claim that they "spent all their budget on Rooney". So answer this one, do you think they wont spend a penny in the Summer? I would be shocked if their spending didnt hit double figures in millions.

I dont want to continue this discussion with you because its straying incredibly off topic. The whole reason I brought up the spending issue is because United have spent huge sums, particularly in the past few years (3 c.£30M players in 4 years!). Its something that you cant deny, and something I think should be addressed in assessing the job Fergie has done.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

To me a manager with an open cheque book is any manager that is spending big year in year out. Ferguson is one of those managers.

I was through with this but i have to reply to the un founded rubbish being posted. JT you really are just spouting biased opinion that is obviously untrue and showing up your lack of knowledge on the subject.

United success was built on Fergies youth policy which is why it took so long. This was so successful that the FA changed the rules for signing young players. Remember Alan Hansons comments ."You win Nothing with Kids". How he must regret them.

From 1994 to the summer of 2000 Uniteds most sucessful period and so the seasons that would have most bearing on the poll in Fergies united career he spent £39.4 million nett in the transfer market . In the the same time Liverpool spent 39 million in the transfer market. Need I say more to disprove your theory.

Anyone that is honest and unbiased will admit that Uniteds most sucessfull team was built around Giggs Beckham Scholels Butt The Nevilles Ole and Cantona all players that cost little or nothing, just over £ 2 million for the lot .
True he made some big purchases too like Keane 4M Yorke12.8 M and Stamm10.5 M to supplement the team but as I have illustrated he did not spend any more than other clubs around him at the time who had little of the success he had.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I was through with this but i have to reply to the un founded rubbish being posted. JT you really are just spouting biased opinion that is obviously untrue and showing up your lack of knowledge on the subject.

What rubbish? Are you saying that Ferguson is not a big spending manager? He is. The biggest spending manager in the league before Abramovich came on the scene. By a country mile.

The Muppet wrote:

United success was built on Fergies youth policy which is why it took so long.

The success was built on a lot of talented kids, supplied by the tremendous youth policy, surrounded by other world class players who did not come cheap.

The Muppet wrote:

From 1994 to the summer of 2000 Uniteds most sucessful period and so the seasons that would have most bearing on the poll in Fergies united career he spent £39.4 million nett in the transfer market .

Any sources? And why not include all the way up to 2001, sure they won the league then too. Or does by doing that add Veron and Van Nistelrooy to the equation? Resulting in that net figure increasing by more than double.

The Muppet wrote:

In the the same time Liverpool spent 39 million in the transfer market. Need I say more to disprove your theory.

Yes a lot more. All that proves, if true, is that Liverpools manager(s) were woeful at the time.

The Muppet wrote:

Anyone that is honest and unbiased will admit that Uniteds most sucessfull team was built around Giggs Beckham Scholels Butt The Nevilles Ole and Cantona all players that cost little or nothing, just over £ 2 million for the lot.

And Keane (English transfer record), Cole (English transfer record), Stam (most expensive defender bought by an English club) and Yorke (£2M short of another English record).

I fully accept that he had a great influence in organising the youth system, which was a huge influence on 1999. But to deny that the acquisition of top dollar players wasnt as big an influence is just deluding yourself.

The Muppet wrote:

True he made some big purchases too like Keane 4M Yorke12.8 M and Stamm10.5 M to supplement the team but as I have illustrated he did not spend any more than other clubs around him at the time who had little of the success he had.

You havnt illustrated it, youve just said it. And you have conveniently forgotten that his spending has gone through the roof post 2000 without reward.

PHB

I think what the muppet is objecting to is the idea that Fergie bought the success to the same level that Mourinho 'bought the success'

Man Utd's success was based both on their youth system and their high quality signings.
Chelsea's success has been based on their high quality signings with one player from the youth system.

That said, I think Arsenal are the most impressive since Wenger was successful based on buying quality players who hadn't had good times at other clubs, and changing them into world beaters.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Any sources? And why not include all the way up to 2001, sure they won the league then too. Or does by doing that add Veron and Van Nistelrooy to the equation? Resulting in that net figure increasing by more than double.

My source is the internet, all the information is out there if you bothered researching before posting instead of just posting non factual rubbish. The reason I didn't go up to 2001 is that we are tallking about the stupid notion that fergie baught his success and the period I covered is without doubt Uniteds most sucessful period but just to keep you happy here is a list of Transfers for both cliubs all the way up to the summer of 2001. As you can see Liverpool spent £10.27 million more than Man Uniited did that year meaning that they were hbigger spenders than United to the stage, United most sucessful period. As I said you really should check you facts intsead of just posting the rubbish you have.



Manchester United
IN

Date Player's Name Pos. From Club Fee Contract
14/10/2000 Luke Chadwick (Eng) WG Antwerp (Bel) Loan recall ?
11/2000 Kalam Mooniaruck (Eng) FW Youth Free ?
02/2001 Darren Fletcher (Sco) MF Youth Free Pro
04/2001 Jimmy Davis (Eng) RW Antwerp (Bel) Loan return ?
£0

OUT
Date Player's Name Pos. To Club Fee Contract
05/07/2000 Danny Higginbotham (Eng) CD Derby County (Eng) £2m 06/2004
15/12/2000 Henning Berg (Nor) DF Blackburn Rovers (Eng) £1.75m ?
01/2001 Jimmy Davis (Eng) RW Antwerp (Bel) Loan 06/2001
03/01/2001 David Healy (N.Ire) ST Preston North End (Eng) £1.5m 06/2005
04/01/2001 John O'Shea (Ire) CD Antwerp (Bel) Loan 06/2001
18/01/2001 Mark Bosnich (Aus) GK Chelsea (Eng) Free 06/2004
27/05/2001 Teddy Sheringham (Eng) FW Tottenham Hotspur (Eng) Bosman 06/2003

---

Liverpool
IN
Date Player's Name Pos. From Club Fee Contract
29/11/2000 Daniel Sjolund (Fin) MF West Ham United (Eng) £1m 06/2004
07/12/2000 Igor Biscan (Cro) CD Dinamo (Cro) £5.5m 06/2005
04/01/2001 Jari Litmanen (Fin) FW Barcelona (Spa) Free 06/2003
20/06/2001 John Arne Riise (Nor) LB Monaco (Fra) £3.77m 06/2006
Total £10.27m

OUT
Date Player's Name Pos. To Club Fee Contract
18/08/2000 Dominic Matteo (Sco) CD Leeds United (Eng) £? ?
07/11/2000 Brad Friedel (USA) GK Blackburn Rovers (Eng) Free ?
06/12/2000 Steve Staunton (Ire) CD Aston Villa (Eng) Free 06/2003
£0

You see if it was my intention to skew the figures I would have included these in my inital post and that would have made liverpool the bigger spenders but as we are talking about United success being baught I only included the most sucessful period of the club.

p.pete

PHB wrote:

I think what the muppet is objecting to is the idea that Fergie bought the success to the same level that Mourinho 'bought the success'

Man Utd's success was based both on their youth system and their high quality signings.

Ok - should we say he stole the success? Quite a few clubs have bitched over the years about Fergie burgling their bank of youth.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

Ok - should we say he stole the success? Quite a few clubs have bitched over the years about Fergie burgling their bank of youth.

Indeed any excuse to deny the obvious will do, as long as you don't have to admit the truth, which is that he built the team from the ground up, he did not buy his success.

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

Indeed any excuse to deny the obvious will do, as long as you don't have to admit the truth, which is that he built the team from the ground up, he did not buy his success.

I'm just bitter he wouldn't let Paul McGrath talk to Liverpool.

<edit>

Nice counter-argument btw - "any excuse to deny the obvious" indeed :rolleyes:

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

I'm just bitter he wouldn't let Paul McGrath talk to Liverpool.

<edit>

Nice counter-argument btw - "any excuse to deny the obvious" indeed :rolleyes:

You need not roll your eyes at me P Pete, I didn't deny what you said. It's fact he scouted and signed the best young talent in the country {as i said earlier, again read the post} but your comment is a bit of a turn around from saying he bought Uniteds success which is what was being discussed. Which is it did he buy his success or was it built on his youth policy?

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

his youth policy?

Which largely equated to stealing - that's my argument

Ardent

p.pete wrote:

Which largely equated to stealing - that's my argument

Wasn't Beckham a Spurs youth player originally? And Giggs was infamously pinched too.

Yeah great youth policy.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

Which largely equated to stealing - that's my argument

I'm not biting P Pete. I would remind you that to join any club you have to sign a consentual contract. You could have come up with something less childish TBH ,

N.G {Must Try Harder}:D .

GuanYin

United's "Youth Policy" basically revolves around scouting the best young talent and then, if they're at a lesser club, tap the player up.

In the past its worked wonders for them, let the players develop in another teams youth academy and then turn there heads and bring to United - Beckham (Spurs), Giggs (Man City) being two of the more successful and notable figures.

One UK pundit, noticed that the change in FA approach to such carry on, notably in the Furor over his tapping up of Bellion, has coincided with a lack of youth coming through United's ranks and their subsequent loss of the PL stranglehold.

So yeah, United's actual youth acadamy is a poor compared to other clubs in the country and only seemed to be doing well because Fergie pinched already developing players from other clubs.